__________

* 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 to-wards 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 particu-larly 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 gravi-tation), with mx in the centre, which brings in the idea that the attraction field surrounding mx is thickened (attracting) space, which how-ever not is a new specific assumption which adds anything, because if mx can attract other mx, which then consist of mv, then mx prin-cipally 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 eve-ry 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 move-ments, then each p-long movement through each p in/through dp must take (non-extended) tp-time (a point of time (a timepoint)), beca-use 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 equ-ally 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 de-pending 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 sur-face, outside a particle cannon perhaps. This is verified by "empirical" experiments, smaller particles (consisting of fewer mx) are scat-tered 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 par-ticles (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 ex-ists, 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) (contradic-ting the continuity), and moreover it is then valid in accordance with Lp (t1). So those who want to assume this that p]≠p) must consequ-ently reject Lp, which almost wipes out the possibility of mathematical definition (since Lp is an incredibly fundamental principle in mat-hematics). 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 secti-ons) 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 pa-ragraph, but given their expression, apparition they already intuitively should have been rejected (although there are some that is ratio-nally in the theories of relativity (even in the most irrational theory there can be a grain of rationality)). And given the E-theory, or espe-cially 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 ("bezugs-molluske"), 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, ari-se from/in Nothing, then creating spacetime (in/extruding Nothing). The Universe as a string mollusc, well, more absurd have to be sear-ched 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, beca-use 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 actual-ly 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.