The beauty of the scientific method is logical conclusions cannot be righteously denied, even if the source is unconventional (e.g. yours truly).
It all starts with the fact that no objective boundary has ever been discovered.
Quantum physics concludes that particles are blurry/cloudy, so no hard boundary exists between them.
Physics tells us that reality is pure energy — e.g. Dr. Albert Einstein’s most famous equation basically concludes that mass is highly condensed energy (mass-energy equivalence). Space will be covered later herein.
Reality being pure energy sensibly reveals why there is no objective boundary. Energy currents are seamless.
By removing any objective particulate boundary within a reality of pure energy, particle/wave duality cannot make sense.
When particles are understood to be relative resonances — so still waves (no duality) — in a reality of pure energy, the scientifically famous double-slit experiment thankfully finally makes perfect sense at our common scale of existence.
By that logic, the physicality of observation (however it is defined) is energy, and based upon the double-slit experiment, observational energy resonates to form particle energy (actually seamlessly resonates with particle energy).
In other words, the absence of observation leaves particles flowing as currents of energy through the double slits to form an interference pattern (like water flowing through those two slits). But observation of any sufficient kind resonates with those particles, so they behave as expected even at our common scale of existence.
Measurement (e.g. the boundary revealing where the particles land after passing through the double-slits) also collapses the wave function (i.e. resonates the particle), and measurement is energy. That inclusively means that the moon does exist, when nobody observes it, because measurement energy is there for that lunar resonance.
There is much more to explore about measurement and observational energy to better define it — likely validating a new area of science dedicated solely to that style of energy — but brevity demands that we move on here.
There is simply the oneness of reality, and scientists can do nothing with that result, other than meditate upon it.
Therefore boundaries are scientifically leveraged, which is fine — as long as scientists understand that boundaries are subjective (modulations of the brain) and inevitably deviate from reality.
To eliminate the terrible conflation with unscientific subjectivity, a new subjectivity classification that fully adheres to the scientific method is needed. Human subjectivity (hubjectivity) is any result that all of humanity can only purely rationally agree upon, but is not necessarily true outside of that species-level perspective. Most science is actually hubjective.
A reality of pure energy is a purely sinusoidal reality, as demonstrated via the well-established Fourier theorem (i.e. any complex waveform can be broken down purely into a seamless set of sinusoidal currents).
A purely sinusoidal reality is a purely logical reality, so the unfortunately excessively popular idea that reality’s overwhelming complexity within itself is a sound basis to (inclusively passionately, if not violently) uphold irrational conclusions is now sensibly voided completely into the realm of mental problems worthy of deep societal concern.
The scientific evidence only shows that the sine wave is the sole base pattern of reality, so science is ultimately about sinusoidal shaping — an area where theorists dealing with M Theory (and so on) are already unwittingly operating.
To instantly appreciate the unimaginable challenge that scientists face in sinusoidal shaping, simply observe your situation. Obviously the amount and style of particle resonances within your vicinity is overwhelming upon sufficient scrutiny. Countless particles are there forming highly complicated outcomes (including your perception), so you begin to understand that sinusoidal shaping of the human vicinity is terribly challenging work that will keep scientists busy throughout posterity (like forever zooming deeper into a computer-generated fractal).
The absence of relativity at the scale of the oneness of reality due to the absence of any objective boundary means that reality has no definition, because definition requires relativity — i.e. explicitly defining what something is relative to implicitly defining what that something is not.
So reality can only be currently scientifically concluded to be an undefinable extreme.
There is another way relying solely upon mainstream scientific logic to reinforce that conclusion.
Balance is inherent within stability, which is hypothetically due to balance (i.e. the zero amplitude point) being more frequent than each of the positive and negative peaks within the sine wave.
No known system is unbalanced yet stable, and no hypothesis even suggests the possibility of unbalanced stability.
That includes reality itself as logically the system of all systems.
Reality obviously equals all possibilities.
A stable reality equals the balance of all possibilities.
The balance of all possibilities of energy inevitably includes phase inversion (e.g. what goes up in waveforms instead goes down and vice versa), which ultimately leaves us with the supreme version of phase cancellation (i.e. equal-but-opposing waves cancel each other out), so reality is an undefinable extreme.
A stable reality of pure energy equals seamlessly all possibilities mirrored internally by phase inversion.
Everything equals nothing.
Note that phase cancellation makes sense instead of destructive interference (which is the physics term), because the result of that supreme “destruction” is reality.
Time has been repeatedly experimentally proven to be a dimension of space, so while humanity perceives the passage of time, science reveals that time is actually one spatial moment (this one).
Experience itself concludes that reality cannot be destroyed, because if reality is destroyed in a future place, then we could not be experiencing this moment (e.g. reading these words) — i.e. such destruction would span all time and eliminate experience itself.
As reality is pure energy, another way to reinforce the indestructible nature of reality is to simply point to the law of physics that states that energy cannot be destroyed.
So reality’s stability is permanently supreme “in” the only actual moment (again, this one).
Any area within reality that challenges that stability is subjectively doomed, which is why we die (and so on).
However, critically note that as reality is one without objective boundary, the objective “you” (or anyone or anything else) is synonymous with reality.
That is hypothetically why some people have the sensation of having a soul, so we now have a logical definition of the soul. Reality is equal to the soul, so instead of there being multiple souls with unavoidably subjective boundaries, there is one soul that binds literally everyone and everything within the cosmos.
People who fail to believe in the soul are convinced that the boundary separating their humanity from the rest of reality is actually there, where they perceive it to be. Mainstream science disagrees with that conclusion due to the absence of objective boundaries.
Progress can only be subjective, because there is no way to progress reality’s literally perfect stability.
Everything within reality is solely governed by that stability.
Math cannot be the base of the theory of everything (i.e. there is no equation that generates reality), because math requires boundaries, which inevitably conflicts with reality’s undefinable extremeness.
Also, one (including math) cannot sensibly exist outside of existence to create existence.
Another way to look at the limits of mathematical reach is a purely sinusoidal reality means no objective linearity. Any rigidity (i.e. a linear construct due to rigidity over time) is merely subjective — i.e. a very lengthy sinusoidal current that merely appears straight, like the Earth’s horizon appearing straight upon a casual glance. As math is inherently rigid, inevitably that rigidity becomes problematic against reality’s purely sinusoidal curvature.
However, math can be refined to reveal more complexity of sinusoidal shaping within the human vicinity, which naturally leads to advancements in technology, and so forth.
Without any objective boundary, space can only be scientifically concluded to be energy.
It may even be possible for someone to extend Dr. Albert Einstein’s most famous equation basically from ‘energy = mass’ to ‘energy = mass = space’.
As space is energy, the properties of space modulate in all possible ways.
As of this authoring, there are three familiar spatial dimensions, the fourth dimension that is time, and the mathematical necessity for more dimensions to make the well-established equations of relativity and quantum physics fit together.
When we understand that dimensionality is energy without any boundary, we understand that dimensionality is relatively oceanic due to the absence of any rigidity associated with any limit (including the number of dimensions relative to humanity).
As an audio sculptor, I often demonstrate the complexity of spatial energy via many meticulously sculpted spatial parameters. Everything that comes out of your speakers is energy, and that includes the results from reverberation and other spatial effects commonly used throughout music production to create a likeable sense of space for the listener.
Here is a downloadable example of my innovative spatial sculpting preferably for your listening pleasure…
The three dominant spatial dimensions relative to humanity are dominant spatial energy currents (ultimately curved, despite their linear presentation to the contrary), while time is relatively a lesser dominant current, which is hypothetically why the brain evolved differently with respect to time.
Revealing more spatial complexity within the human vicinity is a powerfully major area of scientific and technological advancement — one that apparently has humanity modulating instantly to reach vast distances.
There is more within my fairly brief document titled “Reality Waveform Theory” (simply freely accessible — e.g. no registration required — at the RWT page of this journal).
RWT answers the basic questions of reality in a purely logical way that literally fits all experimentally established science.
In other words, the basics (i.e. the what, why, where, when, and how) of reality itself are truly basic, even despite the unimaginably overwhelming complexity within reality.
Humanity now has access to those basics for an unprecedented grounding to strengthen our stability as a species, and individually within our species.
In addition to the aforementioned bringing of common sense to the double-slit experiment, RWT validates Dr. Albert Einstein’s instincts against quantum physics, without sacrificing the experimentally validated area of that form of physics. A purely sinusoidal reality is simple and elegant.
He was also valid in believing that the universe is stable and unchanging. While the known part of the universe (knownverse) is expanding, reality (synonymous with the universe) is not.
RWT is written meticulously in a way that strictly adheres to solely leveraging certainty within the English language, so is purely logical similar to anything mathematical.
To encourage proper scientific scrutiny of the aforementioned conclusions and RWT overall, this post will repeat annually on March 14 — Pi Day (which also happens to be Dr. Albert Einstein’s birthday) — with refinement or retraction, if appropriate.
The ramifications of RWT are powerfully serious with respect to humanity. We will not explore them in depth within this post, but optionally reserve them for reverberating posts decorating this annual pulse, and likely naturally sometimes expressed during my live streams (e.g. https://twitch.tv/spiritwave7).
In short, RWT at least allows us to understand the ultimate absence of multiple egos (we are all one with an interminable reality), the consequent logical removal of the fear of death due to reality’s permanent stability and the aforementioned oneness, the understanding that control and freewill (however defined) are energy (i.e. reality equals control equals freewill), and the understanding that nobody can intelligently believe in the possibility of getting away with corruption.
That last one is due to reality’s balancing need for stability (what I call the Rule of Reality). In other words, any dominant pressure within reality must always have an equal counter-dominant pressure in the name of that logically supreme balance, even if that balance is relatively unpredictable.
So do not be the torturer, unless you can be the tortured in equal measure, for prime example.
Do not be the powerful top of the hill, unless you can handle the inevitable balancing measure of being powerless crap in the valley, for another example.
The path to power is the path to powerlessness in a balanced reality.
The path to powerlessness is the path to power in a balanced reality.
Spending dominance wisely to minimize counter-dominant suffering apparently leads to a dramatically positive change in human behavior — e.g. logically discouraging greed and other unhealthy power grabs (i.e. power addiction) that applies unbearable dominance against way too many beings (likely including you and any applicable yours).
When everyone understands the Rule of Reality — thankfully a relatively easy goal that can be learned at a very young age — those power addicts become genuinely and intelligently pitied.
No power addict can withstand being rightfully pitied, because that completely defies the never-ending goal of any power addict. In other words, power junkies desperately need their power fix, and pity is the exact opposite of that fix.
To logically end greed, humanity needs a globally sustained pity movement of sufficient size against power addiction.
That scientifically validated understanding improves humanity’s balance and therefore health, both collectively and individually.
While I disabled comments in RWT (the link again provided here for your accessing convenience, if you are interested in understanding the theory now), your mutually constructive comments regarding that theory and/or this post are welcome here, as is sharing this post to preferably join the righteous quest to scientifically improve posterity.
Thank you for any support that you provide.✌️