Given this, and provided that it is a matter of stable mx which not cleaves each other, then a "jumping", "thrusting" mx (superpositionally) just only arises in (a "thrusted") mx’, with which mx’ so to speak cannot know where mx is coming from, which if mx appears completely covering mx, which principally is the case if mx and mx’ (to their extent) are smallest volumes, or if the "central point" of mx appears in the "central point" of mx’, means that mx’ must "jump" unconditionally stochastically (completely random, in any direction), which contradicts the "empirical" observation that x can move in definite directions (with which mxÎx also must be able to do so). If mx and mx’ not are smallest volumes, and the "central point" of mx not appears in the "central point" of mx’, then mx’ is "flipped" in some direction depending on how mx appears in mx’, which also not define definite movement (but also that can be defined to define unconditionally stochastic thrust-movement, even if mx’, in accordance with Up’’’, "jumps" in exactly the same direction if thrusting mx appears exactly (identically) in the same way/place in mx’, then given that the "central point" of mx not appears in the "central point" of mx’ and that mx and mx’ not are smallest volumes). But for (more) definite movements, an ad hoc assumption must be made, namely that mx hands over directional information to (communicates with) mx’, to at least reasonably "jump" in a certain direction, which definitely not is intuitive (if anything is as unintuitive as something can be), but, shall "the empiri" be believed in so:

 

A thrusted mx "jumps" at least reasonably in a thrusting mx "jump"-direction (through that thrusting mx passes directional information over to thrusted mx, this then in accordance with the "empiri"); How thrusting mx "jumps", if at all, after a thrust, is not specifically defined, but close at hand is to assume that they "jump" unconditionally stochastically, that the thrusted, initially "resting", mx also "thrusts" the thrusting mx, but as "resting" of course not can pass over directional information, by which unconditionally stochastic "jumps" are the only (rational) alternative, then for the thrusting mx after their thrusts on thrusted mx.

 

Individual, not (by other mx) attracted mx (which hardly is particularly common, but for the sake of the analysis it is presupposed here anyway), must all the time be thrusted to be kept moving. Which means that thrusted mx, then unaffected by exogenous attraction, must belong to an x(={mx}), especially a slightly larger x, to be able to move a little further (and more linearly) on their own,***** in which case initially thrusted or attracted mxÎx starts a (successive) thrust-movement (Fr) in x, which if strong enough drags with it (through Fr's attraction force) remaining, non-thrusted mxÎx. These other mx which firstly, if they are dragged along by Fr, tends to initiate new thrust-movements, which so to speak keep Fr going, and secondly by their attraction force (on Fr) affect, control the direction of Fr. If Fr is too strong x tears apart, Fr leaves x (even if Fr of course also is x), perhaps dragging with it some parts of the other, non-thrusted mxÎx.

 

T1 is the fundamental theorem of the preceding World view, the E-theory, in accordance with which Nothing so to speak not even is 0*=[non-extension (without position)], which intuitively (at least) is E(=∞*), and thus not is Nothing: 0* exists as positionless so to speak everywhere and nowhere, then defining (at least) E, which in its own way confirms T1 (and it must be claimed to be intuitive that Nothing seen as not even being non-extension (per se) not is existence); E≠0* ® E+E≠0*+E; Lp ® E≠E; 0*ÎE, Up’ ® E=0*; Kp. But Lp is then unreliable, so this proof must then be taken with a grain of salt (even if the result is intuitive, everything previously considered, especially concerning T2 in the Lp-section).

 

It can be added that mx are volumes (even if nothing is said about mx shape in the preceding, volume already should have crossed the mind), principally because points, curves and surfaces already exists in the empty space, so mx can by pure distinction reason be ruled out to be those things, which whit this are purely abstract (mathematical) concepts, but mx are then more compact volumes, than mv, or more commonly expressed, than void, pure volume, which given E exists, in areas completely empty of mx (surrounding mx), with which pure volume not is a purely abstract concept, pure volume which of course also is a mathematical concept. However, the mathematical concept of volume cannot be seen as directly relevant also in E: mv can be >, < or = the smallest volume of mathematics, which is a tetrahedron (min[d(y,p)]; pÏy; y=min[d(dp,p)]; pÏdp; dp=min[d(p,p’)]), yes, mv, or then the corresponding to mv ("cut out" in the homogeneous space), since mv then not is something specific (eternal) existing (given T2), is hardly something so specific and distinct as a tetrahedron.

 

__________

* It's thinkable that it outmost not is about pure room, but about something more compact, homogeneous, indivisible, but intuitively and to some extent in accordance with the "empiri" it is about pure room, which it in this work is assumed to be about; Principally it doesn't matter if it is about pure room or something more compact, the only difference is that mv shall be seen as something more compact, then in difference from if mv are seen as pure room, pure volume.

 

** With this, in principle, a piston in a cylinder in vacuum (pure room) can "empirically" prove this. A piston which when pushed towards the bottom of the cylinder creates (outmost) mx, and which given that room is something, which it must be in order to be able to create mx, cannot be pulled out of a long enough cylinder. However, this presupposes that there is some material that not (enough) let room (mv) through, which unlikely exists, it requires that mx in the material are extremely tightly packed, probably so tightly packed that it is a matter of an explosion (a thrust-movement primarily (comprising many mx)) rather than a densely packed material. But would there be such a dense material and mx not is created when the piston (with sufficient force) is brought towards the bottom of the cylinder, or the piston (with sufficient force) can be pulled out of the cylinder (given that room cannot be stretched however far, which it particularly in accordance with T2 cannot, and more commonly it is also intuitive), then it proves the existence of Nothing. In the latter case there are two possibilities (given the preceding parenthesis), either room not exists at all, but "room" is (intuitively of course absurd) Nothing, or room exists but it can be torn apart (above the stretching limit) and Nothing in that way arises between the separated room parts, these "room gaps" which intuitively also is room, but principally they are not if the room can be torn apart.

 

*** mx is so to speak a giant particle, because attraction in accordance with the "empiri" can reach far (especially when it is called gravitation), with mx in the centre, which brings in the idea that the attraction field surrounding mx is thickened (attracting) space, which however not is a new specific assumption which adds anything, because if mx can attract other mx, which then consist of mv, then mx principally also can attract mv (space). No, the central thing is mx attraction, which mv cannot have, because if mv have attraction, then there is constant attraction, in all positions in E, which (restated) defines eternal specific phenomena (in all positions in E), contradicting T2. So mv has given T1 within itself, immanent, latent, only the possibility of attraction, which turns into real attraction force in mx (if mx have attraction force) or perhaps earlier, in "thickened" space (which consists of superimposed mv, which not are mx (initial absorptive mx, or then stable mx)). mv thus not have any (own) real attraction force. And individual mx hardly have, yes, can outright be ruled out to have sufficient attraction force to thicken space, even if mx attraction force (in accordance with the "empiri") reaches far. But it is perhaps mx in quantity, in x, that can thicken space (if mx now have attraction force).

 

**** Identically with this statement is p-long movement no movement, but movement is at least dp-long; dp=min[d(p,p’)]. At least dp-long movements in which mx then not is (exists) in d(p,p’) in a "jump" between p and p’. In order to anyway more specifically analyse p-long movement (continuous movement), it must particularly be known how many p a dp consists of:

 

An extension is assumed to be non-extended as long as it consists of at most n^ number of p, where n^p is a finite number of p:

 

A) np=p; n≤n^<∞’.

 

Addition of m, a finite, number of p, to n^p, is assumed to define dp, a smallest extension:

 

B) n^p+mp=dp; m<∞’:

 

p+mp=dp; A:

 

(1+m)p=(n^+m)p; B.

 

Which defines a contradiction if n^>1, which is valid, which given Kp defines that:

 

t2) ∞’p=dp:

 

np=p; n<∞’.

 

In accordance with T2, ∞’=∞*, which of course contradictorily defines dp to be E, so this is a matter of purely abstract (mathematical) definition, albeit perhaps with some rationality(/intuition). Well, given this mathematical, then an mx(/x) which (continuously) moves through all pÎdp thus moves infinite many times, which simpliciter is absurd, thus that an mx is in an infinite number of positions during smallest movement. Furthermore then every movement through every p in/through dp is p-long, because if every movement through every p in/through dp is at least dp-long, then smallest movement is infinitely long, which of course is absurd. A p-long movement which then is a non-extended movement, and with that of course is no movement. If that (p-long movements) anyway are assumed to be movements, then each p-long movement through each p in/through dp must take (non-extended) tp-time (a point of time (a timepoint)), because if each movement through each p in/through dp takes at least (extended) dt-time (dt=∞’tp), then smallest movement takes infinitely long time, of course absurd. Which means that every dp-move takes dt time, and every ndp-move takes ndt time, all mx(/x) moves equally fast, which (especially for x) is contradicting the "empirical" experience (albeit partly is in accordance with Einstein's theories of relativity (see next section), "partly" because speed (for all x which move) is constant according to this mathematics, it cannot vary depending of/on gravitational field (g-field), as according to the theories of relativity (where the speed(=[speed of light] (c)) is higher the lower g and vice versa (lower the higher g))). And it definitely contradicts the E-theory, where movement then depends on how often mx "jumps", which of course depends on how often mx is thrusted or (how much mx is) attracted.

 

Well, this then gave no arguments for continuous movement, p-long movements are simpliciter no movements (continuous movement not exists, but movement (initiated by thrusts or attraction (or by E in E-contractions)) then occurs (discontinuously) per "jump", at least dp long, of course both in terms of thrust-movement and attraction-movement; That thrusts (collisions) between mx only cause "jumps" is more intuitive than that mx must "rest" (at least dt)^ between each "jump" if mx is constantly attracted, but, so it then rationally must be).

 

***** Single thrusted mx then "jumps", in accordance with the "empiri", at least reasonably in the same direction as thrusting mx "jumps", by which of course movement of mx not has to be linear, assume that mx movements not are linear. But that it is required that mx more belong to a group of mx, which as a group (at least reasonably, sufficiently) move together, for it to be a matter of more linear movement; Single mx which are thrusted for example close to the Earth's surface, "falls", are directly attracted towards the Earth's surface, outside a particle cannon perhaps. This is verified by "empirical" experiments, smaller particles (consisting of fewer mx) are scattered quite widely when they especially are thrusted through slits (they form an interference pattern as it is called, a shadow pattern, where the wall between the open slits (through which the particles passes, those that get through the slits) gives rise to shadows, areas which fewer particles hit (which if it is a matter of (equivalently) light can be said to be darker), on a plate behind the slits). Larger particles (consisting of more mx) move more linear (not gives rise to this shadow pattern, if large enough).

 

^ Every mx-"jump", and every "rest" shorter than dt time, takes in accordance with t2 max tp time, assume that an mx "jumps" twice, where each "jump" takes tp time, and is d(p’,p] respective d[p,p’’) long, and that mx "rests" tp time between the "jumps" (in p), which defines, where tp then defines the time for the first "jump", tp’ the time for the "rest", and tp’’ the time for the second "jump":

 

tp+tp’+tp’’=tp; t2.

 

A tp-"rest" is with this no "rest", but the whole is about a momentarily "jump" between p’ and p’’, thus d(p’,p’’) long:

 

"Rests" must be at least dt-long.

 

 

 

Not assuming T1

 

If Nothing is assumed to be able to exist (T1 not is assumed), then a number of existential possibilities opens up, especially for Einstein's cosmology, see further below, which specifically not needs to be addressed (then with the exception of Einstein's theories, which only are addressed because they are conventionally believed in), but the analysis can stick to the basics regarding this, namely that d(p,p’) not exists, that Nothing exists between p and p’ if only these two p's are assumed to exist. Which intuitively is completely absurd: if p and p’ exists in different positions (in the same dimension) then it intuitively just only exists a distance (space) between p and p’. But that is of course principally not the case if it (in a principle) is assumed/defined that it does not (T1 not is assumed):

 

p,p’; p,p’ÎE, d(p,p’)ÏE:

 

p]≠p).

 

The latter is intuitive, because intuitive there is a distance already between p] and p), thus between p and one on p immediately following p(≠p), thus that p]≠p), but this thus not is valid if continuity is valid/prevails(/rules), in which case then p]=p), there not prevails (exists) a distance between p] and p), which is intuitive, since a distance of course (intuitive) prevail (exists) between p] and p) if p]≠p) (contradicting the continuity), and moreover it is then valid in accordance with Lp (t1). So those who want to assume this that p]≠p) must consequently reject Lp, which almost wipes out the possibility of mathematical definition (since Lp is an incredibly fundamental principle in mathematics). Yes, this is not easy, even if T1 is assumed, it is hard to digest that p]=p), but at the same time not, it is then about continuity, that there must not be a gap (consisting of Nothing) between p and the closest (to p) next p, but then that p]=p). This mathematical shows that mathematics has consistency problems, especially if it assumes that p]≠p). The Fundamental logic (the theory in the previous sections) commonly not fall into that mathematical problem, because it just only assumes that continuity prevails, primarily in accordance with T1, sees p as pure abstraction, something only thought, which as a concept may have its value, but just as well has no value.

 

Albert Einstein's (1879-1955) cosmology further then, defined in the so-called theories of relativity (1905-1915), are something of the most mysterious that ever have been seen, pure mystery,* which can be blamed on misinterpretation of experiments, see further next paragraph, but given their expression, apparition they already intuitively should have been rejected (although there are some that is rationally in the theories of relativity (even in the most irrational theory there can be a grain of rationality)). And given the E-theory, or especially T1, it is a simple matter to confute the theories of relativity, because they assume the Universe to be surrounded by Nothing, which then simpliciter not is the case (not is valid) given T1; More specifically according to Einstein the Universe is a string mollusc ("bezugsmolluske"), a light snake or light worm which (dynamically) so to speak coil in the humus of Nothing, forcing Nothing out, an extrusion called spacetime(=Universe). A spacetime which of course simpliciter not exists if it not is surrounded by Nothing, yes, if spacetime not is surrounded by Nothing, displacing Nothing, then of course E exists, and "spacetime" is phenomenon in E, especially then mx, and thus nothing special, especially nothing created, because created spacetime of course presupposes Nothing, that spacetime can be created, arise from/in Nothing, then creating spacetime (in/extruding Nothing). The Universe as a string mollusc, well, more absurd have to be searched for.

 

Einstein assumes that light not is captured by gravitation (or at least not completely), which it rationally on the contrary simpliciter is. The latter which means that there is no fundamental difference between (on Earth) measuring the speed of light as for example measuring the speed of a ball, which in turn means that no difference in the speed of light can be measured from which direction (at which "angle") light than falls into (and through) a stationary measuring device (which measures the speed of light), which is exactly what experiments also show. But given Einstein's assumption that light not is captured by gravitation defines the theories of relativity. More specifically, given this Einsteinian assumption and that no variation in the speed of light (c) can be measured by these stationary measuring devices ("interferometers"), four possibilities are valid:

 

1) No movement at all occurs (light and everything else is completely still).

 

2) Only the light(/the photons)** moves, everything else is still (the light shines over a still, immobile world).

 

3) Everything moves in the same direction (the light, the pastor, the space rocket as the planet).

 

4) Everything is light, which (with c) moves in the same direction (the light, the pastor, the space rocket and the planet are light (spacetime is this light, the pastor (on Earth)/planet is more compact light/spacetime than the pastor/planet surrounding spacetime ("air"/"space"))).

 

Einstein chose alternative 4, given which it is straightforward to define the theories of relativity, provided the existence of Nothing, because if Nothing not is assumed to exist, "spacetime" of course only is flaming light in E so to speak. To show a little how Einstein defines, everything is then light (according to Einstein), with which it outmost can focus on a beam of light, whose length is L:

 

L=tc; t=[norm time], c=[speed of light].

 

Then in the so-called special theory of relativity, Einstein defines fictitious deviation from this actual movement (of norm):

 

I) t’c=th; t’=[fictitious time (for m)], h=[fictitious speed (for m)]; m=mass (a bundle of light rays).

 

Thus that t’ increases if h increases, that time for m goes slower so that m not arrives before itself, and vice versa (because m then actually moves with c, only fictitiously moves with h). Which Einstein calls time dilatation (more rational is actually to define the opposite, that tc=t’h, thus that t’ decreases when h increases, that time for m goes faster so that m not arrives before itself, and vice versa).

 

I rewritten (mathematically, Einstein takes mathematics for granted (as something valid in the (real) world)):

 

l=th² /c; l=t’h.

 

Initially for two m, m and m’, over l and l’ respectively it is assumed that l=l’(=th’² /c):

 

dl/dh’>0.

 

Which if h increases, which is the same as h’ (for m’) decreases, defines that l decreases, which Einstein calls length contraction.

 

Given I further can be defined:

 

L=t’c² /h:

 

II) mL=mc² t’/h.

 

Where mL defines that what Einstein calls bezugsmolluske, string mollusc, an m over its path (then of length L), and since m is light, this of course can be seen as a (coiling) light snake or light worm.

 

II can be rewritten:

 

mhhL/t'h=mc²:

 

III) ph=mc²; p=mh, t’h=L:

 

dm/dh>0.

 

The mass thus increases if h increases, and vice versa, which Einstein calls the mass effect.

 

And III can further well known be written:

 

E=mc²; E=ph.

 

This is strange in so many ways, first and foremost because the h-movements are fictitious? In some way it's well about Einstein wanting to connect the string molluscs with how we perceive the "empiri", but it is still the c-movement that is the real one (according to Einstein then)? If we perceive reality wrong, then it is in no way right to bring this wrongful perception into the world definition. This Einstein corrects in the so-called general theory of relativity in which the fictitious aspect is removed, it is only seen to the actual c-movement, which he assumes to be slower in thicker, more compact, bundles of light, and vice versa: the c-movement goes faster in less compact light bundles. A compactness Einstein defines g (gravitation) for: The more compact (light bundles), the higher g, and vice versa, which then of course defines c to be a function of g:

 

c=c(g); dc/dg<0.

 

Well, then of course it is possible to specify/define further, but it is content with this, it is evident that this is extremely strange, and has nothing to do with how we "empirically" perceive reality. I'm not a stranger to the fact that we can misperceive reality (take for example that that mx "jumps"; Most people well perceives(/assumes) that x moves continuously through space, but thus (rationally) not), but there are limits. Is it unappealing to assume that the Earth's g-field captures, "glues" photons (or to assume T1), then a direct proof of the existence of relative speed of light must be performed. Perhaps by putting a c-meter in the nose of a space rocket and gas max towards the Sun and measuring the speed of incident sunlight. Or maybe build a long rotating arm at the outer end of which a c-measuring instrument measures the speed of incident laser light. Unless in particular the c-meter "glues" the light, which not is very likely, then it should measure relative speed of light and Einstein's theories of relativity be confuted. 

 

__________

* Quantum mechanics is usually claimed to be strange, but in comparison to the theories of relativity it is a miracle of clarity, it overdefines however (can rationally be stated without further ado), especially concerning the number of mx, the E-theory then only sees one kind of mx, quantum mechanics currently sees 61 different kinds of mx (see the last reference). And quantum mechanics defines a little strange sometimes, especially when it comes to the wobbly movement of small particles: To define this wobbliness quantum mechanics define a "wave function", which they want to make to that the particle in itself is a wave (so-called wave/particle-duality), well, of course particles consisting of many mx perhaps can be smeared out into a "wave", but the particles in question are very small, with which it in that case consequently only can be the matter of small "waves". Sees the particles={mx} being "waves" not be constituted of {mx}, then it of course is the matter of mv (E-theoretically), the particles have thus then been completed, which they in the context not have. Sees the particles being "waves" being something non-material (non-mx(≠mv); Especially then an mx can be transformed into this non-mx="wave"), then the quantum mechanics have ended up in the mystique together with the theories of relativity.^

 

Quantum mechanics also wants to see "virtual particles" endogenously be able to "suck up" mv, no, not in accordance with the E-section. They assume that in context of an assumption that x+(-x)=0 ("annihilation"), mostly just a strange assumption: E-theoretically mx may perhaps "annihilate", cleave and complete each other, if many/several mx "jumps" in to each other. Two mx cannot "annihilate", cleave each other, then no thrust-movement would exist (contradicting "the empiri"), but mx-cleaving ("annihilation") consequently requires that several mx "jumps" in to each other, in the same place, in the same position ("p"). And even if two mx could cleave each other, that possibility depends on mx (self)weight (the number of mv mx consists of) and compactness (how centred mx ({mv}(=mx)) is around a position), that possibility simply depends on the "brute force" of mx, not on some mysterious plus or minus (x and anti-x). And given that mx are exactly equal (which they then rationally are), it can only be about cleaving (and completion), or not, of both mx. And provided that thrust-movement is possible, then thus two mx which "jumps" into each other not cleaves each other, but they then thrusts (on) each other.

 

Another assumption quantum mechanics makes difficult to accept, is that particles apart from "communication" between thrusting and thrusted mx (when they are superpositionally superimposed on each other), also can "communicate" with each other at a distance from each other ("entanglement"), and this momentarily(/immediately) (principally on time≤tp), which means at infinite speed, which given T2 simpliciter not is possible (it defines these particles to be E). If it is a matter of finite speed, then it is a matter of out-sent a, with which it E-theoretically must be a matter of large (very advanced) "particles". That mx can "communicate" with other mx at a distance from each other can E-theoretically without further ado be excluded (because mx E-theoretically are "dead" entities).

 

** To talk about "photons", particles is actually wrong, it is more about a homogeneous "sausage", more compact in brighter areas, and less compact in less bright areas, and Nothing where no light "flows". Physicists therefore speak of fields rather than particles, although they also use the concept of particles, particles which are assumed to be points (to their shape), with which they in one way avoid that the theory is contradictory, but the "fields" with this only consists of points, varying compactness not exists, which so to speak requires that p can exist (superpositionally) superimposed, equivalently to how mv in the E-theory are assumed to be able to exist superimposed and define mx, which mathematically simpliciter not is possible, or rather absurd, since more compact p in accordance with t2 consequently requires that an infinite number of p must be superimposed in order for a more compact p to be defined, which by extension means that more compact areas in/of the string mollusc must consist of an infinite number of superimposed light rays, which of course just only is absurd.

 

^ The equivalent of course also are valid for mx, which "smeared out" of course principally are extremely small "waves", yes, given that mx "jumps" (and Up’’’), they simply not are "waves", but unchanged mx, how mx now looks like, in their different positions (if any). And furthermore then single mx cannot move, but for that it then is required that mx exists in group with other mx, so that a Fr-movement can be formed, but single mx is then perhaps only attracted towards something, for example then towards the Earth if they were to come outside an mx-canon.

 

Addition

 

So-called Classical logic assumes very restricted (narrow-minded), contradicting Ia och Ib:

 

N*) x ® y.

 

Thus that a unique x implicates a unique y, which (implicatively identically) also can be written:

 

N*’) (x ® y)=(y Ú x’),(x Ú y’).

 

This in accordance with an assumption Classical logic makes, called the Negation, which all underlying assumptions Classical logic makes defines:

 

N) x=y(=x’=y); y=x(=y’=x); x,y≠0, (x Ú y)=(x Ù y)’:

 

z=x,y.

 

N implicates N* och N*’, albeit in more strict(/restricted) meaning than what N* and N*’ defines, implicatively identically it is given N valid that [or including some additional Classically logically fundamentally: T) N=(x « y),(x ® y),(y ® x),x,y=N(; N)]:

 

N=(x ® y):

 

"N*") x ® y.

 

That it Classically logically is a matter of greater strictness is shown by the (Classically logical) proof of "N*’":

 

"N*’") (x ® y)=y,x=(y Ú y),(x Ú x)=(y Ú x’),(x Ú y’); N(/T), Tp;

 

Tp) x=¦(x); ¦(x)=x.