Universal Cortex Theory

By Henri Cosi

This work was developed during more than three decades, in the area of Theoretical Physics Philosophy. It presents new PARADIGMS, which harmoniously describe the Universe and its laws in a single cohesive theoretical body. The unique theoretical set of this work completely EXCLUDES the hypotheses about “Dark Matter and Energy”, about the “Big Bang”, about the “expansion” of the Universe, about the “absolute singularity” of the Black Hole, about the “wave-particle duality”, both of light and of matter, but, at the same time, it brings all the explanatory (non-descriptive) and DEDUCTIVE logical framework of nature and Universe phenomena, that stimulated the scientific community to try to build such world-renowned hypotheses. This work, among other various deductions, brings a clear EXPLANATION about the nature of MAGNETISM, GRAVITY, LIGHT and even MOVEMENT, all elucidated in a cohesive body from beginning to end.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Clube de Autores
• Release date: Mar 12, 2024

Book preview

UNIVERSAL CORTEX

THEORY

HENRI COSI

Original Record: 152.537

05/28 1998

Current Record: 812.839

01/28 2020

SUMMARY

Introduction

Preamble

Chapter 1 – Vacuum

C

hapter 2 – L igh

t

Chapter 3 – Mass

Chapter 4 – Movement

C

hapter 5 – Inertial Acceleration

Chapter 6 – Gravity

Chapter 7 – Atom

Chapter 8 – Interaction

C

hapter 9 – Relative Propagation

Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

After the reader carefully reflects on the Conclusion, at the end of this work, it becomes elementary and necessary that this theory be analyzed with an open mind to the new paradigms contained in its structure. Despite its initially philosophical basis, an objectively grounded theoretical work was built.

Several conceptual conclusions were reached, based on a consistent system of hypotheses, many of which carry in their core a more coherent explanation of facts currently little understood by current theories, both cosmological and subatomic. Subatomic facts must be related to each other and to those of the macro world, since none of them was ever really separate. And it is precisely this systemic and unequivocal union that occurs in this present theoretical work.

The first four chapters (especially the 1st and 2nd) have a more subjective and philosophical basis to support all the new paradigms that wil be presented in the course of this work. The new hypotheses and concepts that emerged from such a base, despite the fact that this initial base has a more philosophical body (and it is not, therefore, devoid of logic and reason), were built according to rational criteria and according to the correctly established models of Physics and their coherent systems. Al nine chapters have an indissoluble conceptual and theoretical connection, and encompass the cosmic and macroscopic nature, as well as the quantum and microscopic nature, all in a single coherent body of ideas.

Briefly, the first chapter discusses the hypothesis regarding the nature of the Vacuum and Space itself. The second chapter presents hypotheses about the nature of Light. The third about the nature of the Mass. The fourth chapter introduces concepts and hypotheses about the Movement. The fifth chapter presents, as a direct rational consequence of the previous chapters, the surprising hypothesis of Inertial Acceleration (that is, the concrete idea that any material body accelerates in space without the aid of external forces).

The sixth chapter presents the explanatory (and not descriptive) hypothesis for Gravity. The seventh chapter, in turn, enters the paradigmatic hypothesis of the birth of the Universe, according to the entire theoretical body developed in the preceding chapters, with a primary focus on the nature of the Atom. The eighth and, by far, the longest of all chapters has a more objective and explanatory characteristic for the main and fundamental types of Nature's Interaction.

The ninth and final chapter succinctly concludes the whole paradigmatic set, offering a solution to paradoxes created by Special Relativity (paradoxes that, at first, are not known or, at least, not disclosed by the scientific community), without, however, causing nor to propose any modification in that theory.

In the first chapter, from the presentation of the hypothesis about the structural nature of the Vacuum, as having a finite and universal shell, to be conceptualized as Negative Space (or S-), it wil be perceived the main reason for the title attributed to this work, since it starts from that primary hypothesis the path to most of the paradigms and hypotheses to be defended in the course of this theory.

PREAMBLE

To begin the presentation of this theoretical work, I must previously introduce a necessary observation about Euclidean and

non-Euclidean geometry, which are mathematical systems that sought to describe the real world.

As this present work fully asserts and relies on a certain axiom as a precondition for the development of subsequent theoretical deductions, I must first present the rationale behind such axiom, which is the real existence of the Infinite.

Consider, then, the following logical premises:

- Only infinity exists objectively.

- In absolute infinity there is nothing relative.

- There are no contradictions or paradoxes in infinity.

- Finitude is a subjective reality.

Now consider the argumentative sequence for the logical construction of the infinite axiom:

Contradictions and paradoxes exist only in finitude, thus making finitude inconsistent. They are indications of the infinite existence embedded in finitude, which cannot, by its very nature, support fully infinite characteristics.

The very existence of finitude is a paradox in itself. Since, considering infinite primacy, finitude does not exist. Finitude has zero size compared to infinity. However, the human mind perceives itself to exist. It is a subjective existence. Therefore, it cannot consider

the non-existence of infinity either. Infinity is a true proposition that cannot necessarily be proved.

On the other hand, finitude itself proves to be inconsistent, as it supports contradictions where the rational and the irrational coexist, both in self-referential Logic and in Physics itself, proving, then, a non-existent reality, or only subjectively existing.

When, for example, it is stated that the Universe has finite space and emerged from nothing, that is, from itself, such an assertion is equivalent to considering that there is no obvious paradox here.

In other words, it would be the same assertion that there is no paradox in the sentence I am lying right now, asserting it either true or false, without contradiction. And that sets up a comfortable and elusive mental path.

However, to consider that the Universe came out of nothing and is finite, denying the pre-existing infinite eternity, is to live, in the same way, with a paradox. The infinite axiom is superior to finitude itself.

Mathematics, for example, was born directly from infinity and, like it, cannot be touched, nor fully proven through finite logic.

Mathematics itself, in infinity, is complete and consistent. Just like the geometry known as Euclidean.

The mathematics that finitude can possess and achieve is consistent, but incomplete, and cannot be proven. Unlike finitude itself, which is an inconsistent system, therefore inferior.

The mere presence of entanglement in Physics and irrational numbers in Mathematics highlights the subtle presence of infinity

embedded in finitude. Mathematics, thus, is superior to logic, being greater than the coherence built by the rules of finitude.

Al counter-arguments from skeptics who deny infinity end up raising the probability of non-existence of the counter-argument itself. In this sense, the skeptic cannot prove that he himself exists, so he should admit that he may not exist. But he never admits, intimately, due to his own sense of existence.

Considering that infinity does not exist because such a concept is supposedly an invention of the human mind is also considering that the questioner's sense of existence is also a product of his own mind, thus being able to question whether the mind itself human exists. The skeptic wil use only the sense of existence that he has to prove about himself, and wil try to argue through any apparently obvious premise, but wil be refuted in the same way and with the same instruments that he uses to try to refute the argument of infinity.

The key point of this paradox of finitude is simple: the human mind is not a human creation. Its existence does not depend on the human being itself. Mind arose, whether through chaos or not, through the Universe alone. Ultimately, not only the mind is a product of the Universe, but the products of this mind, be it fantasies and imperfections, be it the sense of existence and perfection. And if the Universe could, through human evolutionary creatures, manifest sensations and thoughts about the infinite, these are previous to the human being, independent of him.

In this sense, Mathematics, for example, was never an invention either. More and more variations, equations and principles are discovered that are bewildering within Mathematics itself. Another

paradox of finitude: discovering perfect laws within an artificial human invention? So, if we consider that mathematics is a human mental

abstraction to explain practical things in life, we stil get into the same dilemma: human beings and their brains are not creations of human beings. They were made by nature.

Therefore, if the chaotic Universe provided the existence of minds that abstract, then ultimately the Universe created Mathematics. And if the Universe could provide the idea of infinity, whose axiom is superior to the very finitude of the Universe, then infinity exists and has always existed.

After introducing the construction of such a basic premise that wil support all the theoretical deductions of this work, I conclude this Preamble with a consideration on Euclidean geometry, as a condition of the characteristics of the infinite axiom itself.

Finite mathematics, deduced by man, was almost always defined with abstract constructions to translate the concrete world.

However, thinkers and philosophers who entered such abstract terrain ended up immersing themselves, inevitably, in non-concrete worlds. In other words: they ended up approaching an infinite world.

Euclid's postulates, including the unacceptable 5th axiom of parallels, actually described some of the profound features of the infinite world, rather than its intended initial concrete goals. And, by logical observation, the infinite world differs from the finite Universe.

In the supreme infinite, demonstrated by Mathematics itself (Georg Cantor), perfection is absolutely established. In this sense, the infinite and the postulates arising from its nature do not need proof.

And some postulates, although not obvious to many, stil prove to be forceful and supported solely by infinite reason.

The inevitable reaction of the scientific community, due to the impossibility of reconciling infinity and finitude, was the liberating

negation of Euclidean thought. A vision of supreme logic and unquestionable and beautiful truth was abandoned for the pragmatic adequacy of the finite and imperfect world. This one that adequately responds to the distortion of infinite perfection. Or, to the distortion of pure space.

Non-Euclidean space was a revolution in the finite world, a mental distancing from infinity, a gradual transition from abstract to concrete thinking in Mathematics. In order not to surrender to the unknowable and uncomfortable infinity, the mental world of Philosophy was, little by little, putting its feet on the ground.

The simple conclusion that an honest human mind can reach is that both systems, Euclidean and non-Euclidean, are correct. One exists in infinite reason, in pure abstraction. Another, however, exists to serve more precisely the requirements of the concrete world.

But, just as it cannot be conceived that finite magnitude is superior or prior to infinity, Mathematics should never serve as a base and priority instrument for physical theories that use their rational deductions only in non-Euclidean geometry. On the contrary, such geometry can instrumentalize a theory, but after the corollary of its fundamental bases has passed through the mainstay of Euclidean geometry, and thus be translated into mathematical rules.

For this reason, the fundamental basis of this entire work wil begin with the origin of the Existential System, that is, it wil begin with infinity and its Euclidean system of logical description of existence.

While non-Euclidean geometry fits mundane limits and scales, from our solar neighborhood to a galaxy, Euclidean geometry, conceptually superior and infinite, fits the Universe as a whole, wide and vast, in which the space actually appears flat.

Certain parts of the finite Universe are better described by finite (ie, non-Euclidean) geometry, but its general structure and its birth was rather due to the inevitable presence of infinity, as we wil see in Chapter 1. From this Euclidean description of the general structure of the Universe, the rest of the work wil be gradually developed and grounded in an increasingly concrete and verifiable way.

1. VACUUM

This first chapter completely introduces a new theoretical paradigm in Cosmology, which underlies all the essence behind the main hypotheses defended in the next chapters. And such a paradigm as a primordial hypothesis and previous to the others, in terms of causality and structural scope, is the simple idea of the vacuum as being a substance. However, this is not a return to the old Luminiferous Ether theory.

This essential paradigm wil serve as the basis for the other hypotheses and it is with it that the logical construction of al this theoretical work wil be structured. It is, therefore, a primordial hypothesis about the essential nature of Space itself.

To present such a paradigm, it is necessary, first, a prior axiomatic analysis of the theory currently in force, which involves not only the nature of space, but its origin: the Big Bang theory.

The implanted idea about the origin of existence considers that Space-Time itself appeared in the Big Bang. Space and Time, then, would have started to exist from a singularity, at a remote moment in the finite history of the physical Universe.

Following the line of reasoning of the Big Bang hypothesis, it is deduced, first, that space could only arise if there were, a priori, any material essence that caused its existence with the distortion between parts of that same essence. In this case, the fact that the material essence is essential for the spatial emergence as a pure concept leads to the conclusion that this same material essence becomes a conceptual manifestation of the space itself. Thus, the first

manifestation of space appeared in the MATTER itself, according to this theory.

The manifestation of time took place, according to the theoretical principle of the Big Bang (which is built on the fundamental basis of the molds of General Relativity), with the MOVEMENT of this matter, starting with its expansion on a four-dimensional level and with heterogeneity and relative three-dimensional distances from all universal matter.

Moving matter, in short, forms the logical basis of the Big Bang for the emergence of finite existence.

In order to analyze the rationale of such a hypothesis, we must take into account the supposed Fourth Dimension, called Time.

What, then, would the Fourth Dimension be?

To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the abstract and axiomatic structures known in mathematical philosophy (which wil be called model A, "abstract), and then I present for this work the concrete analysis, distinct from such structures (which wil be called model C, concrete"), considering it as the theoretically correct and unique model for Existence, according to the hypothetical molds defended in this work.

However, model C does not provide a sufficient pragmatic structure for the necessary exemplification of the theoretical views to be presented in the framework of this work. Therefore, an abstract adaptation to model C is necessary, taking into account only a few concepts of model A, but without invalidating the fundamentals of model C. Therefore, to facilitate the theoretical examples of this and other chapters, the model B wil be built. That is, although the basis

of this work considers only the foundation of model C to be valid, I wil use an abstraction promoted by model A.

The essential difference between the abstract (and erroneous) model A and the concrete model C is the definition for Dimension, as we wil see below. And the only similar and common definition among such models is the concept of point.

To begin with, then, what would a point be? For both model A and model C, point is a non-existential system, that is, without dimension, without size or structure, whose punctual singularity becomes inconceivable by the logical admission of existence (that is, it is nothing).

There is another system with a similar description: INFINITY.

However, the Infinite is defined, in model C, as being exactly the opposite of the non-existential system of the point, that is, it is an absolute existential system, which, although has no size nor structure too, it has DIMENSION (it becomes, in model C, the dimensional nature itself), which extends beyond the simple singularity. Infinite must fil absolutely the whole existence. Thus, for model C, Existence supports only ONE dimension, which is Infinite itself.

Now let us begin the analysis of the abstract conceptual molds defined by model A. What, then, would be a one-dimensional

system? It would be just an abstract existential concept (that is, an example, which does not exist in an isolated way in itself) of a single dimension, structured by infinite aligned points, commonly il ustrated in mathematical philosophy as being a line, although line

do not represent the one-dimensional system itself. In this definition, it is noted that it is not the non-existent point that structures the

abstract one-dimensional system as existing (as the mathematical example tries to use), but it is only the addition of a Dimension, which is precisely the nature of the Infinite, not of the point.

Continuing this conceptual sequence of model A, a two-dimensional system is defined by the parallel overlap of infinite one-dimensional systems.

Likewise, the three-dimensional system (where the physical Universe is inserted and structured) would be the parallel overlap of infinite two-dimensional systems, forming a spatial universe of three distinct dimensions, separated by the infinite essence itself.

According to model A, then, a system having three dimensions would be the same as having three infinite systems...

To briefly il ustrate the idea of three-dimensional space, model A exemplifies a graph whose spatial coordinates x, y and z

represent the three distinct dimensions and separated by the infinite factor, as shown in the next il ustration.

Il ustration I:

In the quadrant A of this il ustration I, the x coordinate represents the length dimension, the y coordinate represents the

height dimension, and the z coordinate represents the width dimension (depth).

The B quadrant il ustrates the idea, stil using model A, of the increasing evolution from the one-dimensional to the three-dimensional system, showing that the difference between one dimension and another occurs due to infinite magnitude.

If, for example, 100 mil ion or 100 tril ion one-dimensional systems were placed over one another, it would stil result in a single and immutable one-dimensional system, without any modification (since the points, with which the One Dimension is made up,

correspond to the nothing, without existence, which does not give any possibility of width). For another superior system to emerge, it is not enough the numerical addition of finitude of any kind, but only the introduction of another dimension, that is, of the Infinite itself.

As elucidated by model A, the distance between one coordinate and the other is the infinite overlap of each of them (considering the abstraction of this model A, each of the dimensional systems would itself be infinite, since dimension and infinite confer a single fundamental concept).

In model A, the difference between a two-dimensional system and a three-dimensional system, for example, is only one dimension.

And this dimension represents the Infinite, in such a way that infinite two-dimensional systems would be needed together, to form the three-dimensional system.

However, according to model A, this formed three-dimensional system does not abstractly represent a specific physical measure as a result, since the infinite concept does not admit any heterogeneous characteristic of Finitude. Three-dimension could not be confused, then, with Finitude, according to the abstract conceptual molds of model A. Therefore, Finitude could exist in any dimensional system of this model.

So, the Finitude inserted in the Bidimension, for example, differs from another Finitude inserted in the Three Dimension, through the infinite magnitude. And, in this aspect, the specific size of the Finitude in the Two Dimension would represent the same size measure if such a finite object were inserted in the Three Dimension.

The next il ustration simplifies this abstract dimensional separation of finitudes. In the quadrant A there is the Plan (that is, a

finite object abstractly inserted in the Bidimension). The right side of the Plan, in the il ustration, represents its thickness, which is a line of zero thickness (that is, conferring the non-existent condition of the

points from which it is made). In the quadrant B there is the Hexahedron (that is, the same finite object, now inserted in the Three Dimension), which on the right side indicates a thickness that would be of the same finite measure that the Plane measures in its two-dimensional perspective.

IIlustration II:

Likewise, if we consider the existence of an abstract two-dimensional universe, where a circular (ie, finite) object would be inserted in the center of a square, and connected by four lines to the four vertices of the square, then which finite structure would be this same configuration, if an extra dimension was added to this universe?

By adding an extra dimension, we would be adding to that universe an immeasurable Infinite factor, totally changing the structure of that universe.

Il ustration III:

Between the abstract two-dimensional and three-dimensional, one could deduce approximately the most likely spatial structure that a finite object would have if an extra dimension was added to its system, as exemplified in this il ustration III, in which quadrant A represents an inserted Finitude in Bidimension, and quadrant B

represents the same Finitude, inserted in the Three Dimension.

The analysis of these ideas and axioms of model A may seem simplistic and coherent, but it is only because they are pragmatic. There is no concrete existence for such dimensional systems. This is because, according to model C (defended in this work), if the Infinite is itself the supreme Existence (the very concept of Dimension), then there cannot be more than 1 infinite, more than one existence.

Therefore, if we present the idea of Fourth Dimension in model A, the same constructive and abstract coherence of these exemplary axioms wil be stopped, leading to a disruption of all logical reasoning [We must always remember that mathematical and axiomatic logic must follow a previous theoretical model (as explained in the Conclusion to this work), and not the other way around; it is not a theoretical model that must follow and be posterior to the abstract axiomatic model].

In this way, the Fourth Dimension would be logically inadmissible by model A, that is, a multi-infinite overlap of the Three Dimension. This is because the Third Dimension itself (as well as

Unidimension and Bidimension), according to model A, is already infinite in itself (since dimension and infinite confer a single axiomatic factor, also considered by the model A).

In this sense, the ADDITION of ONE more dimension to the Three-Dimension would become the infinite overlap of the infinite of the three-dimensional system itself (as an infinite of the infinite ...).

Just as the different abstract dimensional models (il ustration I) already constitute a logical inadmissibility, since there must be only a single dimension, a single Infinite in existence, making the

dimensional systems of il ustration I a single concrete system, without divisions or distinctions.

For model C, then, one single and indivisible Dimension in Existence is considered, which is INFINITE itself. In this concrete conceptual context, the physical universe three-dimensional would be confused only with Finitude itself and, in addition, it becomes practically the concept of point. In other words, the three-dimensional

Universe is paradoxically NON-EXISTING, since any Finitude compared to the Infinite becomes zero and, therefore, il usory.

However, such model C becomes a conception similar to more metaphysical subjects from a purely philosophical point of view, far from the intelligible range of the most theoretically palpable conception that this work intends to offer.

Admitting the existence of the three-dimensional and finite Universe (that is, only Finitude represents the Third Dimension itself), and using some abstract concepts of model A just to simplify and exemplify some hypotheses defended in this theoretical work, it is opportune to use the model B, where the correct reasoning of model C is maintained, but it is admitted that our physical Universe is in itself an abstract existence (facing the Infinite Dimension) and, therefore, we can use some abstract concepts of model A, without invalidating the model C.

In other words: in this work, we have chosen to admit the concrete conception that the Infinite itself is the only Supreme Existential Dimension, but, at the same time (in order to exemplify and adapt to our admittedly abstract world), from here the abstract concept of the idea of Third Dimension is established as being

existing and being represented by Finitude itself.

Thus, in model B it is considered that Three-dimensional is a FINITE dimension, and that the only Superior Dimension is the Supreme Infinite itself, to be named here Fourth Dimension.

Il ustration IV:

For model C, when we take as an example a spherical object positioned in the center of the Finite system of three-dimensional coordinates (x, y and z), such object cannot be visualized or positioned in any structure, if a dimension is added to that coordinate system, that is , Infinite itself. In concrete terms it would be the same as simply transforming the object into the homogeneously Infinite, broad and unique system.

In quadrant A of this il ustration IV the spherical object is inserted in the three-dimensional system (Finitude), in the x, y, z

position, a location that is more easily visualized with the addition of spatial lines that represent each coordinated direction. In quadrant B

a Dimension is added to the Cartesian system, thus representing the Infinite itself, in such a way that the exact position of the object can no longer be determined, nor even exist as a singular and finite object, becoming part of the WHOLE Infinite system.

Taking into account the model C for the theoretical molds also for this chapter, and answering the question initially formulated, the

Fourth Dimension then becomes the Supreme and Unique Infinite system itself.

Returning to the hypothesis (whose model was only A) about the Big Bang, which was based primarily on the conjectures raised by Einstein and other theorists and philosophers of cosmological theory, the idea that the physical Universe has a non plane space, distorted by all its matter, in such a way that its three-dimensional structure meets itself again in a four-dimensionally closed cycle, like the example of the surface of a ball, led, finally, to the hypothesis that, despite the space itself not have limits (as is the case with the Earth’s surface), it is finite, as shown in the next il ustration.

Il ustration V:

Since this hypothesis is fully based on model A, a dimension in this il ustration V has been reduced in order to enable and simplify the vision of the Universe idealized by those theorists. Note that three-dimensional space (that is, all matter and the vacuum in the known Universe) is represented by the gray surface of this sphere, which is only two dimensions.

It is stipulated for this il ustration V that the two-dimensional surface of this sphere is represented by the axes X and Y (which, in this example, are the dimensions that represent Space). The sphere's surface, then, being represented only by these two axes, would be a simple finite two-dimensional plane.

However, with the existence of the Z axis (which in the il ustration is the depth), such a flat surface X, Y could bend and

form a sphere. Thus, this surface remains two-dimensional, although it has gained a third dimension in its extrinsic structure, which provides spatial curvature and movement (such as expansion, for example).

This extra dimension (in the example, the Z axis) represents Time. Thus, time is the dimension that provides not only the movement of and in Space, but also allows its curvature. For Time to exist, the axiomatic existence of the third dimensional axis is necessary, which is exemplified by the Z dimension of il ustration V.

And, stil in the hypothetical molds of the Big Bang theory, it can be judged that the Universe grows not only from the three-dimensional point of view (which in il ustration V is represented by the two-dimensional plane X, Y), but also from the four-dimensional perspective (which in il ustration V is represented by the depth Z).

Thus, taking such growth to the simplified analogy of this il ustration, both the two-dimensional Space X, Y (the surface of the sphere) and its three-dimensional depth Z (the size of the sphere) increase in size in an unlimited way.

The next il ustration shows that, according to the Big Bang hypothesis (and model A), the Universe grows in all dimensions. In the analogous sense of il ustration V, the finite space of the sphere’s surface increases in size unlimitedly, although it is conjectured that it is finite.

Considering, first of al , this conceptual sense, the paradox inherent to it resides in the fact that Space is created and self-managed, to grow in an unlimited way, even if the X, Y plane of the surface is finite in size. And a so-called finite space that grows

without disrupting itself cannot logically be conceived without a gap in the coherence of its concept.

Il ustration VI:

In addition to this conceptual logical question, there is also the subject of denial, made by the Big Bang theory and, previously to it, made by the conclusion taken by the theorists in cosmology that gave it foundation, of the existence of the Infinite space itself.

Two interesting conditions about this denial is that, first, by denying the existence of the Infinite, they cannot deny, at least, the inherent infinite in the formation of the three dimensions that they themselves consider existing in model A (as shown in the il ustration I).

Second, that the three-dimensional Universe conceived by the Big Bang theory may even have a finite space (although it grows and thus creates itself unlimitedly), but undoubtedly has the Fourth

Dimension in its structural foundation, not only for its supposed spatial curvature as for its own expansion.

Note that even if the three-dimensional space of the Universe is supposed to be finite, for it to exist as it was theoretically conceived (ie curved, limited and expanding), it is necessary to have a higher infinite dimension (the Fourth), which is Time. As in il ustration V, although the surface of the sphere is finite, in order for it to grow and expand, the previous existence of the Z depth is necessary, which gives this reduced example of Universe the spherical and expansive condition.

Considering this dimensional analogy, the physical Universe can only exist in relation to its Space (this being fil ed with matter and vacuum) if there is necessarily the existence of the Fourth Dimension.

And, even by logical and axiomatic definition of model A, this Fourth Dimension becomes the immeasurable Infinite itself.

In this abstract view, there would be, in practice, no space

around the supposed singularity of the birth of Universe, nor around its supposed expansion already accomplished. This is because, in its established primordial definition, Space would in itself be a finite nature (therefore, it is considered that, in order to exist, it had to be born and grow). However, Time, because it has a dimensionally infinite nature (stil using model A), has always been present.

In this sense, according to the Big Bang theory, Time became measurable and relative when, from the birth of finitude, that is, from Space, time started to be related to it. Thus, it could be said that a portion of that infinite Time also becomes finite, offering dynamics to the three-dimensional Space of the Universe.

The idea intrinsically presented by Big Bang theorists that before the emergence and expansion of the Universe there was nothing (only philosophically speaking), neither space nor time (that is, including the absence of the four dimensions; necessary, however, precisely for the formation and dynamics of this same Universe), it becomes paradoxical from its own structural conception.

Since nothing means the inexistence of Space and even Time (which, even in model A, would even mean absence of Dimension, as the point), then the structural possibility for existence would simply become null.

The assumption itself of an expanding Universe necessarily determines the previous existence of the Fourth Dimension (considered infinite in model A). And Infinite, by its very axiomatic nature, has no end. Having no end, it also has no beginning. Thus, it becomes eternal, with no possibility of birth. Considering the analogy used by il ustrations V and VI, the expansion of universal space goes through the Z dimension (the dimension of Time, which is infinite).

In this sense, the supposed universal expansion could not go through NOTHING, since nothing is not a dimension, it is not Space and it is not Time (it is only the point). Thus, reason leads us to inevitably admit one thing: in order to be born any essence (like Space, for example), one must necessarily admit the previous Infinite dimension, which was never born. Only then would the supposed expansion of the Universe be conceivable.

One of the most questionable points of the logic employed by the current Big Bang theory lies precisely in this categorical denial of the conceptual existence of the Infinite. And the only way to ascertain the logical veracity of the assumption that the Infinite does not exist is

to ask an axiomatic question: Since the Infinite does not exist, then when the Universe encounters an inevitable finite obstacle in the middle of the four-dimensional path of its expansion, WHERE wil such an obstacle be sustained?

Example: to exist the surface of a wall, a prior structure to this surface is necessary, such as cement and bricks. Therefore, any obstacle wil , by nature, have something existing that sustains and precedes it. Thus, there wil always be something that sustains and precedes any obstacle, configuring a continually extra occupation of space. And, if it overcomes the obstacle, or if there is no such obstacle to expansion, nothing can stop it from continuing.

Such questions have no other logical answer, but the

endless course itself. And it is precisely this ENDLESS nature that overlaps and anticipates any other contrary conceptual hypothesis.

Although the maximum Philosophy is unable to fully understand the

grandiose and endless nature of the Infinite in itself, the very strength of Logic (being itself a pure and genuine axiom, on which the

model C is based) imposes the truth about sidereal existence: it is simply Infinite...

[Opening a small parenthesis, recently (considering the year of review of this work) a large cosmological survey was carried out by the "Baryon Oscil ation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) Collaboration, in which, in very summarized terms, they could faithfully measure the luminous spectrum of more of a mil ion galaxies, going up to six bil ion years in the universal past, taking into account that, assuming a non-Euclidean space (that is, not flat) for the Universe as a whole, any parallel lines" wil not be parallel in practice (as well as in the analogy used by il ustrations V and