After All The Stars Go To Sleep__The Universe Awakes__A Final Theory...

After all the stars burn our, and all the black-holes, planets and moons, etc., radiate away to the fundamental substance em-field__Thermodynamics is necessarily required by all the laws of physics, logic and math__to change wave phase-state aether space Hydrodynamics__Through the cyclic mechanics of the Universal nearest absolute zero k cold__Shrinking the fs-em-aether back to re-structured matter...

The Cosmological Complexity Logic of The Prime Mover__Solved...!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_decade...

QTHD__Quantum Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics' Necessity...

The proof is: Any simple ideal gas, such as liquid natural gas, shrinks when the heat is removed__and the aether being such a hyper-fine-structured ideal non-viscous fluidic gas__is also necessarily required to shrink, when all the heat goes out of the Universe__Thus turning the expansion to contraction... But, it's a trillions of trillions of years out to the re-cycle mechanics and back, and the sheer velocities and magnitudes of time/distance volume involved__Should be enough hydrodynamic force, to produce the four fundamental forces to construct another Big-Bang__as Newton's laws come into play on the return trip__Expecially Inertia__Then of course, all the Quantum and Relative Mechanics Laws...

Btw, if a LNG tanker's gas were at room temperature, a ship to carry it, would be 600 thousand feet long__as it's a 600 to 1 gas shrinkage, just by removing the heat from the gas... The largest LNG tankers are 1000 feet long, appx...

A Possible Answer of Universal Mass…

Hi L______, funny you should mention this at this moment, as I awoke this morning thinking on this very subject. To me it's the most foundational question there is, and people the world over have been trying to solve this 'Riddle of The Sphinx' since the dawn of time. What my thoughts wandered to this morning was Einstein, as I was always trying to delve deeper into his mind, to the levels he'd have been thinking, to get as deep as he did, when I realized from being pushed a bit by G___, how I'd respond to answering to the challenge of best explaining my Decay Model. Also by relating A_____'s, N_____'s and P____'s ideas to mine, I just realized it all comes down to interpreting clearly just exactly what E = MC^2 truly means. Energy and Mass are what is stated, but by my defining Energy on N_____'s thread as not an entity, but a by-product of matter in motion, it finally dawned on me that both Energy and Mass in Einstein's formula are simply measurements, and nothing more__E is simply a measurement of M__another measurement. The real substance being measured is never mentioned, so really, the whole formula as stated is just Einstein's subjective 'God' view of 'Self and All' measurement__Totally lacking the entity of foundation of the material measured. Of course, all physicists know he's intended it to measure a certain amount of matter, but by being left open and background independent, it can also oh so easily be applied to the entire Universe of all reality__and herein lies its subjective faults mixed and conflated with any objective reality, the formula is really supposed to be applied to, and very much confusing so much of the world of science, philosophy and psychology...

Now, let's look for the true foundation in E = MC^2. If it's not energy measuring mass, due to both being pure measurement of measurement, what is it? It's no more than the subjective formula of measurement of its own non-entities__Until we enter a Real Entity. The only real entity to enter into the formula is one of the elements of the elemental table, and choose any one of them you wish, but realize Energy and Mass are not even a single element of the elemental table__Therefore, the formula only makes sense when one of the elements of the table of ground are thought to be the Mass in the formula__so we finally chase mass back to its ground of at least one Real Element... Now, take Einstein's formula all the way to the Universal level, which many of us do, by seeing it as the Relativity Measure of all structured matter sped to the speed of light, and either going backwards in time, or dis-appearing through the light cone as total decay of all finiteness__But Now__Realize these are false subjective assessments of the formula, because the formula is only measureing the formula itself, in most minds, as no fundamental ground is even mentioned... Finally bring the formula back to Earth and enter a piece of matter, and ask yourself what that matter truly is...???

The answer can only be known by either using the subjective side of the formula or an objective Real Matter side of it. Let's simply life-span decay all matter to its most fundamental, and that would be a photon, so by realizing a almost infinitely huge number of photons would be required to account for all of finiteness's decay, we also in reverse thinking, would realize a very large number of photons would be required to build any even smallest piece of matter, even a tiny hydrogen atom__Now, and with the help of Ol' Man Einstein himself, we find the Bose-Einstein Condensate__on the return trip of decay, building from photons back to seeable condensed structured matter__So, the M in the formula is the Mass of real Matter, who's absolute fundamental structure is the Photon made of Real Matter__All along__and the newest standard model physicists, scientists and philosophers are finally coming around to realizing the fact that E = MC^2 must be a representation of Real Matter's Mass__to have any meaning at all__as otherwise, it's just a measurement of measurement__Mass and Energy are not Entities__They are both simple measurements of fundamental matters of mass in motion... So now, these many standard model physicists and theorists have finally realized the lil' ol' photon is absolutely required to have Both matter and mass, to build a Real Universe__Even if, a very infinitesimal amount...

Sorry, for the long off-topic post, but Your post just happened to be the first one I opened this morning, and when I saw my name, and the subject addressed, I thought it might fit...

Addendum:

There's no other Engine of the Prime Mover Motion ability, except the final phase changing state of Decay at Limit, to be the Prime Mover of The FS...

It's the simple phase-state change, demanded by wave mechanics, of thermodynamics losing heat, to turn hydrodynamic at extremely low wave frequency, which just happens to be the Universal conditions of such state, when all the stars, black-holes, planets and moons, etc., go to sleep, i.e., decay to the nearest zero k limit...

It's all the simplicity of Quantum Wave Mechanics At Limit__The Re-Cycle Limit of Thermodynamics to Hydrodynamics...

As to infinity, it's required to account for eternity's space__otherwise you have only the infinite regresses, and illogical contradictions of all the laws of thought, logic, math and science...

The Universal Topology Absolutely Requires Infinity, as Finiteness Only Occupies a Small Volume of Infinite Space, But when Space is Seen As EM-Fields’ FS__The Conundrum of Infinity vs. Finiteness Arises, and Is Only Solved by An Eternal Infinity of The FS, Even Though It's Only Provable By Modal Necessity Logic and Intuitionistic Math...

It's only a model guys__And models are mere representations of reality, but mine offers the logic and maths as proofs, of a truly fundamental foundation for the standard models__for the first time in history...

There's no conjecture__Only the necessary and fully derivable logic from the real Universe, and its laws and maths...

Iff there's no infinite field beyond finiteness's decay limit__there's no prime mover possible__and a true void is not allowed by science's necessary logics, maths and proofs__Since; "Field is everywhere"__whereas infinity exists simply by being required by eternity's necessity__plus a Universal Mechanics Necessity of Motion__or there's absolutely no foundation for Motion__So, the choice is Conjectured Eternal Motion__Or a Fully Logically Derived Motion...

The Choice is Yours...

When will the world ever learn, Energy, Mass and Time are mere measurements of FS-Space-Em-Field Matter in Motion__and Nothing More...

FS-Space-Em-Field Matter = A Single Triadic Physical Entity...

P____, there is no beginning of a "No Beginning"... Even in your own ideas, any beginning is a logical contradiction of your own ideas of eternity in infinity. Both your and my logic dictates/necessitates an "Absolute No Beginning"__to be eternal, thus infinite...

My model isn't conjecturing a fundamental motion__It's clearly stating the Absolutely Necessary Universal Wave Mechanics Function at Re-Cycle Limit, which really isn't a Limit of the Universe, but just one of its Phase-State Changes__Necessitated for the eternal Universe to have motion__It isn't created within the entire Universe__It's only a described always existing mechanics, as what's always been the Prime Mover Hydrodynamics of all existence, of the FS, and all structured matter and fields...

Peirce's Definitions of Scientific Truth...

Truth

(see also Real )(if need be, highlight this entire post to read easier, the red and gray elements)

"To say that a thing is Real is merely to say that such predicates as are true of it, or some of them, are true of it regardless of whatever any actual person or persons might think concerning that truth. Unconditionality in that single respect constitutes what we call Reality.[---] I call "truth" the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction." ('A Sketch of Logical Critics', EP 2.457-458, 1911)

"Unless truth be recognized as public, - as that of which any person would come to be convinced if he carried his inquiry, his sincere search for immovable belief, far enough, - then there will be nothing to prevent each one of us from adopting an utterly futile belief of his own which all the rest will disbelieve. Each one will set himself up as a little prophet; that is, a little "crank," a half-witted victim of his own narrowness.

But if Truth be something public, it must mean that to the acceptance of which as a basis of conduct any person you please would ultimately come if he pursued his inquiries far enough; - yes, every rational being, however prejudiced he might be at the outset. For Truth has that compulsive nature which Pope well expressed:

The eternal years of God are her's.

But, you will say, I am setting up this very proposition as infallible truth. Not at all; it is a mere definition. I do not say that it is infallibly true that there is any belief to which a person would come if he were to carry his inquiries far enough. I only say that that alone is what I call Truth. I cannot infallibly know that there is any Truth." (Letter to Lady Welby, SS 73, 1908)

"The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection or entelechy, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so identical, - in such identity as a sign may have, with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it. The entelechy of the Universe of being, then, the Universe qua fact, will be that Universe in its aspect as a sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign." ('New Elements', EP 2:304, c. 1904)

"... to believe the absolute truth would be to have such a belief that under no circumstances, such as actually occur, should we find ourselves surprised." ('Reason's Conscience: A Practical Treatise on the Theory of Discovery; Wherein Logic Is Conceived as Semeiotic', MS 693: 166, 1904)

"Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing as truth, or he would not ask any question. That truth consists in a conformity to something independent of his thinking it to be so, or of any man's opinion on that subject. But for the man who holds this second opinion, the only reality, there could be, would be conformity to the ultimate result of inquiry. But there would not be any course of inquiry possible except in the sense that it would be easier for him to interpret the phenomenon; and ultimately he would be forced to say that there was no reality at all except that he now at this instant finds a certain way of thinking easier than any other. But that violates the very idea of reality and of truth." (Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.211, 1903)

"Truth is a character which attaches to an abstract proposition, such as a person might utter. It essentially depends upon that proposition's not professing to be exactly true. But we hope that in the progress of science its error will indefinitely diminish, just as the error of 3.14159, the value given for π, will indefinitely diminish as the calculation is carried to more and more places of decimals. What we call π is an ideal limit to which no numerical expression can be perfectly true. If our hope is vain; if in respect to some question - say that of the freedom of the will - no matter how long the discussion goes on, no matter how scientific our methods may become, there never will be a time when we can fully satisfy ourselves either that the question has no meaning, or that one answer or the other explains the facts, then in regard to that question there certainly is no truth. But whether or not there would be perhaps any reality is a question for the metaphysician, not the logician. Even if the metaphysician decides that where there is no truth there is no reality, still the distinction between the character of truth and the character of reality is plain and definable. Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth. [---] In the above we have considered positive scientific truth. But the same definitions equally hold in the normative sciences. If a moralist describes an ideal as the summum bonum, in the first place, the perfect truth of his statement requires that it should involve the confession that the perfect doctrine can neither be stated nor conceived. If, with that allowance, the future development of man's moral nature will only lead to a firmer satisfaction with the described ideal, the doctrine is true." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.565-566, 1902)

"These characters equally apply to pure mathematics. [---] A proposition is not a statement of perfectly pure mathematics until it is devoid of all definite meaning, and comes to this -- that a property of a certain icon is pointed out and is declared to belong to anything like it, of which instances are given. The perfect truth cannot be stated, except in the sense that it confesses its imperfection. The pure mathematician deals exclusively with hypotheses. Whether or not there is any corresponding real thing, he does not care. [---] But whether there is any reality or not, the truth of the pure mathematical proposition is constituted by the impossibility of ever finding a case in which it fails. This, however, is only possible if we confess the impossibility of precisely defining it." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.567, 1902)

"But even if it were impossible to distinguish between truth and reality, that would not in the least prevent our defining what it is that truth consists in. Truth and falsity are characters confined to propositions. A proposition is a sign which separately indicates its object. Thus, a portrait with the name of the original below it is a proposition. It asserts that if anybody looks at it, he can form a reasonably correct idea of how the original looked. A sign is only a sign in actu by virtue of its receiving an interpretation, that is, by virtue of its determining another sign of the same object. This is as true of mental judgments as it is of external signs. To say that a proposition is true is to say that every interpretation of it is true. [---] Thus, a false proposition is a proposition of which some interpretant represents that, on an occasion which it indicates, a percept will have a certain character, while the immediate perceptual judgment on that occasion is that the percept has not that character. A true proposition is a proposition belief in which would never lead to such disappointment so long as the proposition is not understood otherwise than it was intended." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.569, 1902)

"All the above relates to complex truth, or the truth of propositions. This is divided into many varieties, among which may be mentioned ethical truth, or the conformity of an assertion to the speaker's or writer's belief, otherwise called veracity, and logical truth, that is, the concordance of a proposition with reality, in such way as is above defined.

(2) The word truth has also had great importance in philosophy in widely different senses, in which it is distinguished as simple truth, which is that truth which inheres in other subjects than propositions.

Plato in the Cratylus (385B) maintains that words have truth; and some of the scholastics admitted that an incomplex sign, such as a picture, may have truth.

But truth is also used in senses in which it is not an affection of a sign, but of things as things. Such truth is called transcendental truth. The scholastic maxim was Ens est unum, verum, bonum. Among the senses in which transcendental truth was spoken of was that in which it was said that all science has for its object the investigation of truth, that is to say, of the real characters of things. It was, in other senses, regarded as a subject of metaphysics exclusively. It is sometimes defined so as to be indistinguishable from reality, or real existence. Another common definition is that truth is the conformity, or conformability, of things to reason. Another definition is that truth is the conformity of things to their essential principles.

(3) Truth is also used in logic in a sense in which it inheres only in subjects more complex than propositions. Such is formal truth, which belongs to an argumentation which conforms to logical laws." ('Truth and Falsity and Error', DPP 2 / CP 5.570-573, 1902)

"By a true proposition (if there be any such thing) I mean a proposition which at some time, past or future, emerges into thought, and has the following three characters:

1st, no direct effort of yours, mine, or anybody's, can reverse it permanently, or even permanently prevent its asserting itself;

2nd, no reasoning or discussion can permanently prevent its asserting itself;

3rd, any prediction based on the proposition, as to what ought to present itself in experience under certain conditions, will be fulfilled when those conditions are satisfied.

By a reality, I mean anything represented in a true proposition.

By a positive reality or truth, I mean one to which all three of the above criteria can be applied, - of course imperfectly, since we can never carry them out to the end.

By an ideal reality or truth, I mean one to which the first two criteria can be applied imperfectly, but the third not at all, since the proposition does not imply that any particular state of things will ever appear in experience. Such is a truth of pure mathematics.

By an ultimate reality or truth, I mean one to which the first criterion can be in some measure applied, but which can never be overthrown or rendered clearer by any reasoning, and upon which alone no predictions can be based. Thus, if you are kicked by a horse, the fact of the pain is beyond all discussion and far less can it be shaken or established by any experimentation." (Letter to Georg Cantor, NEM 3:773, 1900)

"The question therefore is, how is true belief (or belief in the real) distinguished from false belief (or belief in fiction). Now, as we have seen in the former paper, the ideas of truth and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the experiential method of settling opinion. [---]
On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they apply it. [---] This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. (' How to Make Our Ideas Clear', CP 5.406-407, 1878)