Zero energy is infinite

A zero energy universe is good news. If someone had told me a few years ago that the universe has zero energy I would have laughed at such nonsense. Today I see this a kind of self evident and obvious. The good news is that whatever we find is true, and so is the opposite. Ergo, if there is proof-ish data saying the sum energy of universe is zero, then the opposite is also truth-ish. The opposite quantity to zero/nothing is infinite/everything, so we’re all good on energy.

If energy estimate had been zillions to the power of a lot, we would be in trouble. That would imply we actually have very little energy at our disposal. Other suggestions made in the article are of lesser value. The question “what produced energy before inflation” is Subjective Self not getting Zen, not knowing Self as Object. Objectively, energy cannot be “produced” before there is energy. To come up with that, one must have the illusory perspective of inside/outside, and as I have stated before, such a perspective is secondary to mass. Being of mass myself, I am that which creates inside/outside. What was before mass/me did not produce energy to inflate anything. Therefore, inflation is one of the subjective illusions. Another consequence of this is the idea that universe does not create net energy. In reality that’s exactly what is happening. So instead of inflation and no energy created we probably have no inflation while energy IS created. My guess is that the energy generation is hidden in mc2.

That is more concivable than having this beautiful equation saying energy is equal to mass times light exponentially while denying there is anything faster than light. The exponent is the growth factor or we would have E=mc.

When figuring out the geometry of universe we would be better of not counting space into the equation. Universe is generating itself and never mind size, volume and direction. Such ideas are subjective matters.

Creating Place for Space Inside Out

Changing mass defines locality. Mass is not “located” somewhere, mass localizes everywhere into somewhere(s).
For a place to exist, there has to be something there, otherwise we cannot define that place. Without mass localizing , the potential places are just space and thus the nonlocal absence of mass, and absence of mass is nothing, just as nothing is “the absence of mass”. If there is no mass, there is nothing. And even worse, there is in reference to a place and without mass there is nowhere. This is so remarkably simple your mind will not see it. Perhaps your ears can hear it, but vision will refuse the obvious. If you dare use logic that might help. The above can be easily falsified if there is:

Defined a place x where there is no mass
Place x does not vary in any shape or form
Defined a space y where there is no place x
Space y does not vary in any shape or form

If there is such a place x and/or space y, then I´m wrong. The sooner the better, because then there is a way out of mass. In the meantime I consider my Self equal to waves on water, that is water only moving.
Subjective Self is looking for waves on water. It believes water to have waves.

What are you?
Where are you?

But, you might think, if a place comes into being only when mass appears there, then there is no place for that place because it was just occupied by mass!!! Yessir, that’s correct, as soon as a place can be defined as there, there is mass there.
Position is ALWAYS second to object.
Write that down on a post-it sticker, and wherever you place that will instantly become there.
Before, it was there, where was it?
Now, it is there, there is it!
So you see, mass creates more than just space. It also creates time as well as Q’s&A’s.

There is only mass changed by force.
Change generates Everything.

Imagine a tree being there. Say “There is a tree”. Now say “A tree is there”.
Then look hard at this:
Tree IS there
There IS tree
Tree = There
There = Tree

Do this little exercise until you realize that mass/tree is a verb which localizes there. Do it until you realize that mass is not a noun which is localized in a place within space. If you realize that, you will have more fun reading stuff like this. There is a reason why gravity is considered the greatest of unsolved mysteries in physics. The reason is that not even the most hard core materialistic scientists are materialistic enough. They still believe in nothing as something to figure out.
Well, I have already figured out nothing. I have figured it out of everything. Do you see that?
Nothing is excluded from the Theory of Everything as Essentially Accidental.
This will be almost impossible to grasp, but try logic. How could nothing have anything to do with everything? A lot of academics will tell you that nothing is very important in order to understand everything, and in a way that is true. But they do not know nothing from the objective perspective, only from their subjective perspective. If they knew how objective they really are, there would be a lot of scientific progress, but the immaterial ghost of subjectivity keeps them half blind. Imagine a scientist who knows that his/her discoveries are done by the matter of what is discovered, how likely is that? Nevertheless, that is what eventually will happen, but there will be no one doing it. In reality, someone will be done discovering.
Imagine that, in the moment of discovery, the one discovering is finally done. The process is exactly the same as when the student realizes truth and is enlightened. Light goes up when student goes done.

Everything appears in the moment nothing disappears. That is why best meditation practice is to do nothing. When the doer/subject of nothing finally does absolutely nothing, Everything can be done objectively, and – Boom – there it is; everything as massive change done by force. The doing is done, as it has been all along.

Ok, sorry for the side note. We will have to spend a lot more time on the basics before your light can pop  If you get the basic premises right, the rest comes easy.

Mass localizes Place(s) localizes Space(s)
Mass is therefore the nonlocal conditioning of locality
There is only mass conditioning nowhere into somewhere
There is nowhere outside mass

When looking at the picture, remember that what you see it NOT localized mass, but mass localizing a “there”.
Imagine screen = there, so mass = place.
Again, there is no “place” where “screen” is, there is only “screen”.
Likewise, there is no “here” where “I” am, there is only “I”.
Finally, there is no “in-between space” I and screen, there is just I and screen.
If you forget that, you will get lost in trying to understand the appearent relations.
I’m pretty sure you will, but that’s ok. Subjective Self is bound to get lost because it does not understand the nature of direction. Subjective Self will refuse to be directed by This.
Subjective Self will refuse to be done.

So go do it. Get lost.
I’m done.

Trimension, the dimension of reality

Reality is about 3 dimensions, space/time not being among them. Space/time is a consequence of the 3 dimensions. 

• Dimension of 2 opposite forces
• Dimension of mass
• Mass/Forces is One Trimension

“That” is mass
“What” is “That” happening by force
As That Happens, What is Reality!
That is continuously becoming What That is
In Reality, That is What Happens.
In Reality, What Happens is That.

Then we might ask Why does That Happen? The answer is already in the question, can you see it?
Why is the reason causing That which Happens!
Two opposing forces affecting That, That is Why.

Stated as a philosophical-ish thesis it could be like this:

Premise 1
Is the opposite force of P2 affecting mass

Premise 2
Is the opposite force of P1 affecting mass

Premise 3
That which is not P1 or P2 is mass

Consequence:
a) Mass changing in relation to forces P1 and P2 is everything
b) Nothing is the absence of (a)

Therefore:
The answer to what is mass
The answer to why is opposing forces

So what about the supposed dimensions of space/time? The general idea idea is that everything exists within space/time, right. Well, that’s not getting it right at all because in reality the opposite is true. Space/time exists within the limits of opposing forces affecting mass. So infinity is not of space and eternity is not of time. Infinity is of mass and eternity is of change. So when asking “What is infinity”, the answer is “Infinity is What”, and when asking “Why is Eternity” the answer is “Eternity is Why”.

Space is where mass is not, so there is a space between us. Therefore, objects do not exist within space. Space is the absence of mass and thus space is nothing. Something that contains something cannot be nothing. Also, in the absence of objects there is no in-between to realize space, so space is conditioned by the presence of objects.
Time is change within and between mass, so the time is-a-changing. Time is conditioned by change within and among objects. In the absence of objects there is no change to realize time.

So you see that time is not a constant, but the opposite of constant. Time is not the background to change, but change is the background for time. The changing of a mountain realizes much time, maybe a million years. The changing of a human being perhaps 70 years. Therefore, there are numerous times going on, in fact Mass Times Change = Times.
Knowing this essence of time can be useful when trying to figure out What Happened “within” Planck time. I suggest Planck time contains no event what so ever, but how long it took to create primal mass upon which P1 and P2 could affect a primal condition. In other words, first there had to be some thing before time could be realized and the creation of that thing/mass took Planck time, hence Planck time is what it took to realize time/change.

Or maybe I’m making too much of it and there is only one force. That seems reasonable. Either it radiates or it don’t. If not, we experience “gravity”. That would fit nicely with us saying “Love is everything” when in reality, love/attraction is nothing, pre-Enlightenment.