Associated

May 27, 2023
13
2
15
Visit site
It is associated with the similarity between the micro and the macro, the atomic model of rutheford is based on the orbits of the planets around the hyperstar (sun) obviously due to the gravitational attraction and the recent ideas of einstein, regarding a monotonous atom attraction between charges The electric force keeps the electrons and nucleus orbiting, and the strong force keeps the protons glued to the neutrons. more associations could be made. GUT.
 
Einstein's revelation of "spacetime" was no merger of space and time but a revelation of a third, separate but equal, dimensionality existing to the two of space and time. And, I finally realize, it isn't string-horizon gravity, the string-horizon strong force, or the string-horizon macrocosmic gravitational (microcosmic quantum gravitational) strong binding force (whether particles or universes), but the electroweak force, that is so strong as to bend spacetime around and [in on itself into itself] to an infinite and/or absolute 0-point. Eternity in a monopole 'moment' singularity.

Gravity, and its extension, the strong (binding) force, altogether the gravitational strong (binding) force, the string-horizon entity equal but opposite to the [pointed-in-the-extreme] electroweak force, is current Big Bang Theory destroying infinite outside-in (Horizon) force, including the deepest inside-out Planck Horizon as being in fact infinite outside-in, the omni-directionality of it culminating -- coalescing -- in the strong (particles and universes binding) force. It is space (t=0), and the many- or multi-surface horizons of space, hyper and/or sub.

Mass and energy? Talk electromagnetic, weak, and monopole (moment) point-singularity electroweak.
 
Last edited:
Do you propose a form of cyclic universe? why don't we have enough matter for this, even with the dark matter and dark energy tapes.
Yep! You are new! Welcome aboard. My position has been throughout my time here that the universe, and all of the infinities of universes, are always rolling over . . . always in turnover . . . always diverging, always converging, always in movement, always in change, always in (always repeating) beginning, middle, and end, in the same eternity in an instant, a moment, of time ([past (into the future) | future (into the past) . . . totaling up to T=0(1), t=0(1). In other words, "steady state."

"Universe" means "a turning unity" (a constantly, forever, turning unity).

I've just spent a lot of time and space tweaking my picture, my model 'Atlanoverse'. All the way to recently changing some century and longer held premises that just weren't firmly holding up at all (vis-a-vis everything above in my first post and more) for me. The more modern findings, works, books and articles I read today, premises that are no longer firmly holding up for many pros in physics and cosmology either. Pros who apparently in larger numbers are increasingly speaking out.

Even quotes from ones long gone are coming back to the fore:

"Please don't hold me to anything I said before I knew better." -- Albert Einstein. The puzzle he spent so long helping to work up would never unify, never piece together, for him either. Parts seemed to work, but overall, it just kept falling apart for him, too. Me, I work from what I know best in my own nature, my own capabilities, abilities, fields and experiences, the more unifiable apexes of the pyramidical set, top-down, bottom-up, farthest outside-in, deepest inside-out (again, farthest outside-in), and leave the alligator filled swamps between to the pros always up to their necks, if not over their heads, in its complexity and chaos.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PedroXY
At present, having finally finished 'Something Deeply Hidden', by Sean Carroll, I'm reading 'What is Real?' by Adam Becker.
And I come upon this:

"The Godfather of quantum physics, Niels Bohr, talked about a division between the world of big objects, where classical Newtonian physics ruled, and small objects, where quantum physics reigned...."

Let me take the view a bit further than he saw, and many have and still do see:

I'm talking about a division between the world of big objects, where classical Newtonian physics rule, and a world of even bigger objects, where quantum physics, and classical Newtonian physics, rule . . . admixture.

Oh, and one other thing so far, Becker said that history found that Earth is not the center of the universe. History has since found that the Earth is the center [point] of the universe, along with every other point of the universe being the dead center point of the universe (our universe being the dead center point of an infinity of universes along with every other universe in their infinities being dead center [point] of the infinite).
 
Last edited:
I like this thread. I really do, separately from my own I began. "Associated," a good title.

I'm always referring to Stephen Hawking's mind's eye "Grand Central Station" to back up many of my pictures regarding my own modeling of my 'Atlanoverse' and 'El Ponderosa' of a 'Horizon'. One of the great things about confirming my model is that I can flip it precisely outside-in, inside-out, and still have it work perfectly for me. To have it be exactly the same thing either way precisely as a horizon of quantum entanglement (always being both inside and outside of it at the same time) should work.

Imagine a great, a very great, ball as the center point of infinity and everything else as a great uniform cloud surface covering and enclosing it, abutting it just to the outside of the ball centered inside of that uniform cloud exterior shell. Of course, that everything else actually being on both sides of the horizon (again, inside and outside) of the ball.

You are of-a-piece with that uniform cloud-surface-shell cover over the outside of the ball. Now turn around 180 degrees perpendicular to the ball inside of the cloud, to find you are center point, 0-point, inside the ball facing out to the inside horizon of the same ball you were / are outside of when facing in the other, opposite, direction.

Now that is "Association!" big time! Einstein did it in his mind's eye without really understanding it. Hawking did it, though I'm not so sure he understood it in 'toto caelo'.
 
Last edited:
May 27, 2023
13
2
15
Visit site
Whether association, switching or distribution are simple mathematical concepts that may be making an implicit rule in the entire universe.

A pattern intuitively seems to exist throughout the cosmos, however, it may just be an illusion falsely ignoring it and moving forward you can find mathematical quirks like golden ratio, pi value, fibonacci sequence and going further to the riddle behind 3 6 and 9 , again, can be just illusions or superstition in knowledge of mathematical.

we thought we were at the center of the universe a few centuries ago, so what we think today is improveable without foundation or delirium can be really relevant.
 
Whether association, switching or distribution are simple mathematical concepts that may be making an implicit rule in the entire universe.

A pattern intuitively seems to exist throughout the cosmos, however, it may just be an illusion falsely ignoring it and moving forward you can find mathematical quirks like golden ratio, pi value, fibonacci sequence and going further to the riddle behind 3 6 and 9 , again, can be just illusions or superstition in knowledge of mathematical.

we thought we were at the center of the universe a few centuries ago, so what we think today is improveable without foundation or delirium can be really relevant.
No illusion, Pedro. The ball I describe above is the microcosmic Planck ball (Horizon), and it is as 'Big' -- as great -- to the inside as the whole macrocosm is to the outside.
 
May 27, 2023
13
2
15
Visit site
It is currently conceivable to speculate a reality by which the universe can be turned over in various ways and be seen in the same way as it occurs with sound, regardless of how it reaches our auditory canal, it will be reproduced in the same way we do not invert a sound wave to hear it backwards, can you understand?
it is these small details that can make such a thing possible, when said that there may be patterns in nature that we can lead ourselves to establish as Einstein may have done without realizing it using such methods as association, switching and distribution that are applied in various ways. shapes.
You just have to know how to differentiate common sense from standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts