# From a drop of water....

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Atlan0001

Amazing, simply amazing:

The speed of light is so certain, so absolute, that there is no such thing as any certainty of position (no such thing as position) regarding it. It is literally the speed of time ([past (in the future) || future (into the past)]).

As I've described many times, it, the speed of light, also happens to be [reactively equally but oppositely] the slowest speed in the universe, from an updating, moving, changing, rest frame '0' in space and time (whatever and wherever that is or will be), -300,000kps. And that, the negative (-) rather than the positive (+), is the only speed of light -- speed of time -- we "observe" in the "observed", "observable universe!" We can and do travel all the time as if traveling on a train on both the rails (+|-) -- at once -- of the speed of light. It is no barrier. It never has been a barrier. Sheez, the 1-dimensional-mind, thinking and thought, that it seems some can never escape!

Even I who have worked at it, practiced at multi-dimensional, multi-versatile, thinking over a long lifetime, have to resist it and climb out of it sometimes. I've run too often into too many people who can only think 1-dimensionally. The 2-dimensional thinkers I run into are better around me, but still not quite up to speed. There is no mental lock down into 1- and 2-dimensional thinking and thought, it's just too easy a hole to fall into and stay in.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

People around on the forum, and elsewhere, know I'm kind of weird when it comes to definitions since I'm an intuitive visual mathematician rather than a formulaic mathematician become the common of mathematics.

I was hunting up the Z boson at the CERN site and ran into "infinite" involved in the descriptions of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, but not the weak and strong forces. Since I work with [infinite (infinitesimal) | infinitesimal (infinite)] all the time, it interested me tremendously not finding "finite" involved in the descriptions of the weak and strong forces, but finding in a couple of different places I got around to, "Casimer effect" involved in the descriptions of the strong force, in particular. Also, in two different place illustration of the strong force the force direction of the arrows was outside-in and not inside-out . . . Casimer effect force direction and a complete vacuum force direction I can't find again and am not interested in finding again at this time. 'Casimer effect', without involvement of physical plates, is enough for me for the moment because what I'm going after is the physical quality description of "finite" versus "infinite." For me, the "visual" of "finite," a force definition of "finite" . . . and "definition" itself, therefore "local" ("locality") and "relative" ("coordinate").

I found the fundamentality of finite force, or rather the forces of finite and definition, local and relative, in the strong and weak forces. And in the weak force the divided heart / state of the personality issues of matter (1) / antimatter (-1) / 0. At least to my flood light (mind) physics over laser beam (mind) physics -- so to speak -- satisfaction.

I've got gravity gripped and figured out to my satisfaction in graviton string (ring (of power, so to speak)) singularity. I'm pretty sure I have a grip on the monopole moment (0-point) but it keeps moving, changing.... slipping that grip momentarily.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I have searched and searched but I haven't found any definition of "monopole" I've liked but as it is used in the example below and that only to a certain extent:

First of all, I alternate it, "monopole moment" with "0-point (portal)" as some already know. I want to drop "magnetic" because the "monopole" I visualize is more dimensional than one.

The example I like most: "Rather than growing in size within our universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space." -- Zeeya Merali, Discover Magazine, 19 June 2017. (To me, it doesn't have to be so "tiny." In other words, it is "hyper-spatial time.," microcosmic and macrocosmic.)

Also consider a "soliton" to be a separate [insular solitary] warp bubble of spacetime.

I may add "quantum" to get it, "monopole," out of the [either/or] "magnetic" 1-dimensional category, I keep finding as definition. "Singularity" being so tied to gravity by convention; I can't use it. I've already dropped the "magnetic" from monopole and tied in the "moment" -- eternal moment -- regardless, I feel I have to flesh out the 0=point (portal) to a 'quantum monopole (moment)' to give monopole a wider field and definition which ties it, in turn, closer to 0-point (portal).

I would have liked to have tied it far more tightly to the strong and weak forces, tying it tighter to the Casimer-like outside-in! effect of the strong force, but it simply wasn't enough for an alternative visualization of 0-point (portal).

'Quantum monopole (moment)' should do nicely as the center piece 0-point of a telescoping gyroscopic / soliton. ("Rather than growing in size within our universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space (if you can reach down and in, up and out, to it, the thru-put portal of a 0-point horizon -- if you haven't already done so -- you've done some mind stretching as well)).
---------------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." Arthur Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.

"If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I would spend seven hours sharpening my ax." -- Abraham Lincoln.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

From 'Something Deeply Hidden' (Sean Carroll):

"To say that something is emergent is to say that it's part of an approximate description of reality that is valid at a certain (usually macroscopic) level, and is to be contrasted with "fundamental" things, which are part of an exact description at the microscopic level."

He gets it partly right, but only partly. We don't exist on the macroscopic levels, just as we don't exist on the microscopic levels. We exist across, we span, them both at the same time. In other words, within and without, precisely the same as the "fundamental" things. We are within countless universes; and countless universes are within us . . . the same universes.

#### Atlan0001

"We are within countless universes; and countless universes are within us . . . the same universes" ([infinite (infinitesimal) | infinitesimal (infinite]). Therefore, thank goodness for the "finite-involved" fundamental "strong force" and the equally "finite-involved" fundamental "weak force" (as I see them and describe in #52, #53, and #54; the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force involving (["infinite (infinitesimal) | infinitesimal (infinite)"]) -- to repeat! the gravitational and electromagnetic; the two "infinity-involved" fundamental forces).

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I've done everything but title my picture, my model. I certainly don't want to label it 'El Ponderosa' though I've used that term in place of a name for it a time or two.

Since it is my picturing, my modeling, my interpretations, I'll call it the 'Atlanverse', or something like it -- 'Atlanoverse' (nee: 'El Ponderosa'). Not all of the time, just upon occasion as the whimsical mood, or otherwise, hits me.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

The more I think about it, either science is wrong about quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") requiring similar conditions to work, or it will work regardless of external influences, because Alice and Bob (tied quite a bit, quite a "qubit," to quantum entanglement) are themselves external influences and everything they do is external influence on the system. So, either quantum entanglement ("spooky action at a distance") exists, period! or it doesn't exist, period!

If it exists, we have a new physics or a different force, something, because quantum mechanics then has a special ability to disregard space and time distance and influence (to disregard scope) . . . and some other influences as well within scope . . . all as we assume them, microcosm and macrocosm to be.
----------------------

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other ...."

(From an ocean, a logician could infer the possibility of a fractal drop of water without having seen or heard of a fractal.)

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

It has been foolish of me to keep 'monopole' and 'singularity' separated just because of convention. The monopole and the singularity are the same thing to me, and they are, it is, to me and my picture, my model, my Atlantoverse, microcosmic / macrocosmic quantum. Trying to stick to convention, in this case, is screwing me up royally.

I hope I can do this where it can be seen and understood. Here goes:

The quantum graviton of the gravitational force is no singularity and no point, particularly no point-particle -- not point particle-like -- at all. It is toroidal string-ring-horizon; inside-out string-ring-horizon to infinite (infinitesimal || outside-in string-ring-horizon to infinitesimal (infinite). It is string. It is ring. It is horizon . . . and THE PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) ([f(p) | p(f)]) 'Horizon'! It is the outland part of a telescoping gyroscopic quantum entity, my fundamental binary base2 (0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and parity) Atlantoverse device.

The quantum 'monopole'-'moment' 'singularity' (the center-'0-point (portal)' of the telescoping gyroscopic quantum entity.... above) is triple sided . . . on the order of Hawking's six-sided particle that is six distinct particles. Three sides, three fundamental forces, electromagnetic, strong, and weak . . . the quantum 'monopole' 'moment' 'singularity' dead centered-0-point (portal) inside the quantum graviton string-ring-horizon. The whole fundamental binary base2 (0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and parity) and, at once, bubble-warp-able telescoping gyroscopic quantum-spacetime entity.

My multidimensional picture, my multi-faceted model, my Infinite MULTIVERSE Atlantoverse, microcosmic / macrocosmic zoom-level quantum-cosmic primal entity (INCLUSIVE of my ponderous PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) ([f(p) | p(f)]) Horizon).

And, of course, I don't care if it is a word salad rather than a math salad. It's my painting and it actually works perfectly (so far and so far as I'm concerned) for me. A lot of time, a lot of work, looking to everyone's viewpoint -- for and against -- to piece together (put together) my own model puzzle, my Atlantoverse. And I had no end of consulting help, whether anyone considered it such or not, from the people on this Space.com Forum. Now it is mostly a matter of continuing to confirm its validity, its self-evidence, so to speak, to my own satisfaction.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

You can see and tell time out to point of collapse into PBB(B)H ([f(p) | p(f)]) Horizon constant and the 'Big Mirror' that mirrors back photons in a microcosmic (Planck scale) universe 'Deluge' of cloud-foam photon 'Flood' (Horizon constant essentially the 'wall' behind the Big Mirror that it (the collapsed Horizon constant) coalesces and that, the 'Big Mirror', will always front to a universe . . . every universe, that is, of infinities in my model 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Atlanoverse').

As to space, you can't see or tell space whatsoever . . . unless, that is, it is detected by possible gravity waves. The "surface" of space in any form of "surface" will always be an effect caused of gravity in some mass -- some more or less massed -- effect of gravity waves (graviton string-ring-horizons).

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

".... the 'Big Mirror' that mirrors back photons in a microcosmic (Planck scale) universe 'Deluge' of cloud foam photon 'Flood'...."

Switching over to macrocosmic universe, that translates to: The 'Big Mirror' that mirrors back frames of light time histories in a macrocosmic (Big Bang scale) universe dense mass 'Deluge' of single-sided 2-dimensional frame light time history 'Flood'.

The difference is no more than one of microcosmic / macrocosmic translation of the same thing.

In the microcosmic universe a gravity wave is a graviton string-ring-horizon. Going the other way, in the macrocosmic universe, a graviton string-ring-horizon of the microcosmic universe is a gravity wave. The difference is no more than one of microcosmic / macrocosmic translation of the same thing.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

"The difference is no more than one of microcosmic / macrocosmic translation of the same thing." Aka, "fractal universe" zoom leveling.

And I play with warp-bubble "solitons," and 0-point (portal) "wormholes," too, in the Atlanoverse.

#### Atlan0001

Once more into the breach!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The universe is going to evaporate, to disappear, at any moment now!!!"

Agreeing with Stephen Hawking, what is there to worry about? The universe is there now, has always been there, and will always be there. The future universe already exists, as well as the past universe -- "positive and negative energies" mind you -- and there is no evaporation of it, no disappearance of it, in an already zeroed 0-point (portal) universe, a constant of zeroed 0-point (portal) universe, anywhere, just as it never appeared instantaneously to evaporate just as instantaneously.

Eternity is now. Full coverage in . . . a "moment"! Self-reinforcing. Self-renewing.

Last edited:

#### billslugg

It is not possible to prove or disprove whether the Universe ends or goes on forever.

1) You bet the Universe will end, and it does end. Then, without a universe the bet cannot be paid off.
2) You bet the Universe will end and yet it continues on. You always have hope, naysayers are forced to wait.

3) You bet the Universe will never end and yet it ends. Without a Universe you cannot be forced to pay off the bet.
4) You bet the Universe will never end and it continues. So far so good. Naysayers forced to wait.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

It is not possible to prove or disprove whether the Universe ends or goes on forever.

1) You bet the Universe will end, and it does end. Then, without a universe the bet cannot be paid off.
2) You bet the Universe will end and yet it continues on. You always have hope, naysayers are forced to wait.

3) You bet the Universe will never end and yet it ends. Without a Universe you cannot be forced to pay off the bet.
4) You bet the Universe will never end and it continues. So far so good. Naysayers forced to wait.
Well, we all have to go sooner or later from the local finite, even the local finite, being finite, has to go. It is then when we find out if we're facing oblivion or simply Deja vu. "Many worlds," many universes, of Deja vu.

Past (-), future (+), and now (0), states all co-exist, microcosmic and macrocosmic, and are equal. "Full coverage in a 'moment'." We won't even have to die to realize time travel. We break out from the Earth into the universe, we will find out we are time travelers as well as space travelers (though not on our local-finite clock). Many histories, many times, many worlds, many universes, just as Hawking, among others not of a new Dark Age but of a new Frontier Age, for saw and for see. An Infinite MULTIVERSE Atlanoverse.
----------------

Aim at the heavens, the universe of great frontiers (therefore great energies and synergies), and get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and get none of it. Paraphrasing C. S. Lewis. Aim at Earth and get a new Dark Age, then an inexorably closing system. History repeats in large, though not in fine detail.

Last edited:
billslugg

#### Atlan0001

Synergy equals an effect greater than a sum total of effects. Applying it to the micro- and macro-verse, that is an effect greater than the sum total of a mighty lot of effects.

Could macrocosmic gravity waves and their microcosmic graviton string-ring-horizons, one and the same thing on two levels of universe, equal the physic of the effect, synergy, greater than the sum total of quantum cosmological effects? To mean, could the universal, the universally reaching, fundamental force of gravity be the synergy force and effect of the other three fundamental forces in combination?

It would not be an effect from cause because it is in being, springs into being, at exactly the same time as the other three fundamental forces together.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Warp bubble, balloon, interesting. Very interesting:

And I though the strong force was the best explained next to the electromagnetic.

#### Atlan0001

As a historian as well as claimed non-credentialed, non-mathematical, cosmologist, I know for a certainty, for a fact of physics, that with "distance" in all distance's multivarious dimensions complexity and chaos increases, grows, blurring exponentially to infinity. Also, that complexity and chaos beyond a certain point always collapses flat or to a point, or both in an essentially solid wall, whether absolutely or in horizon, or both in a dimension offset in space and time from space and time ever nearer to any point of local, relative, finite space and time. Masses, and energies, in dimensions of distance follow right with distances -- in every sense of distances -- in space and time into complexity and chaos increasing, growing, blurring exponentially to infinity until it is Horizon, collapsing, collapsed, constant of Horizon, in place of continuum that is another dimension of reality that exists locally at that "distance," relatively at that "distance," but will never exist non-locally "at a distance," any distance, no matter the sense, the physicality, the dimension, of "distance."

There are physicists, among others, who think and believe, calculate and speak, as if there were no such thing as "distance", as "non-locality", a separate physics, being a physical entity and dimensionality unto itself (physical entities and dimensionalities) outside, of locality, offset from locality . . . any locality . . . all locality without exception in sense and dimension!

So, they had to do the Big Bang up and out, and its self-similarity, its fractality, the Planck down and in, as some magical creation . . . and there being no sense of what they actually are, simply an asymmetrical offset dimension and physic of "non-locality" to a dimensional, a physical, countless-ness of "locality".

#### Brenton The Curios

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- Arthur Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.

From just thinking about the (high energy) microcosmic micro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics a logician could infer the probability of a (High energy) macrocosmic macro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics without ever having observed one or the other.

At both ends of relativity (of observed / observable universe) in the breakdown of relativity (of the observed / observable universe) down and in, and up and out, is the (cumbersome but necessary) Planck Big Bang (Black) Hole (collapsed constant (/\)) Horizon. At once the Infinite Multiverse Universe. Again, at both ends always, all at once, the same PBB(B)H (cc (/\) Horizon, the same IMU. The elementary constituency in the set, and the set in each and all of the constituent elements of the set.

You aren't going to get rid of the Big Bang Horizon because you aren't going to get rid of the Planck Horizon. They are one Horizon, the same Horizon. We have universe domicile within the supreme Black Hole Gravitational (G) Horizon, again one Horizon, the same Horizon. It is at once the Horizon of Infinite Multiverse Universe of infinities of universes (of infinities of universe horizons). The aggregate ends up being a micro / macro quantum mechanical soup that includes gravity and a fifth force, push gravity (thus inertialess space) out of the blend -- to vacuum and high energy physics-- of infinities of hub-centers of gravity (g=x) and the infinite set (G) of them all in the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon (G).

Thus, in reverse: From just thinking about the (high energy) macrocosmic macro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics a logician could infer the probability of a (high energy) microcosmic micro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics without ever having observed one or the other.
Have you run this through an AI ? You just might break it ! lol

#### Atlan0001

Finally getting around family matters to reading further into 'Something Deeply Hidden', and promptly run into Carroll calling gravity a "generally negative" energy that with the "positive" energy of the universe zeroes the energy of the universe.

Right away I'm not going along with this since I have gravity itself being, macrocosmically, the ground surface horizon of 'space' itself -- microcosmic version: quantum gravitational strong force horizon string (re: string horizon), and altogether, non-mass, non-energy, or the 0-mass, 0-energy, entity of space itself!

I once said in passing that the universe was all energy, positive and negative, which is of course sheer impossibility since they zero out. Thus, it leaves mass and energy, both positive and negative, to the electromagnetic and weak forces, and the combined, unified, electroweak force with its macrocosmic monopole 'moment' singularity and microcosmic version Higgs boson. Last, but not least, for this entity of (+/-), I reached for its extreme of absolute zero (where the absolute of hot rounds into the absolute of cold and goes bang! to include Big Bang), well actual not absolute '0' at all but absolute '1', or, possibly, absolute '0' and/or absolute '1' and parity (W(+1) and/or W(-1).... (Z(0)), as I see it.

In any case, I see Carroll to be wrong when he sees gravity to be "generally negative" energy. It isn't mass-energy at all, positive or negative, but as I define and describe it above . . . as far as I see it to be.

#### Atlan0001

In defining a "quantum gravitational strong force," I neglected to bring up an important part. The Planck Horizon side of the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon.

Although it's the same Horizon from both sides, the gravity is a microcosmic counter gravity, microcosmic anti-gravity, deep inside-out (therefore still outside-in) force to the outside-in macrocosmic.

The result, cancellation in a 0-gravity string-horizon dimension of gravity, the strong force . . . the "quantum gravitational strong force," since gravity is still very much a part and dimension of this result of merging string-horizon force as I see it.

Macrocosmic side gravity (+) equals microcosmic side gravity (+), facing.

Anti-gravity (-) equals anti-gravity (-), facing.

0-gravity force = strong force = quantum gravitational strong force.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Fundamental, primal, binary base2 0|1 . . . and parity.

Binary base2 '0' [and/or] '1' . . . and parity.

'0' (null unity) = '1' (unity).

Everythingness ('1') = nothingness ('0').

Everywhere-Land ('1') = Nowhere-Land ('0').

(T='1') = (T='0').

(t='1') = (t='0').

FRACTAL hyper-space (subspace) || subspace (hyperspace) = countless FRACTAL hyper-spaces || subspaces.

FLATLAND = a countless lot of FLATLANDS.

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- Arthur Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.

From just thinking about the (high energy) microcosmic micro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics a logician could infer the probability of a (High energy) macrocosmic macro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics without ever having observed one or the other.

At both ends of relativity (of observed / observable universe) in the breakdown of relativity (of the observed / observable universe) down and in, and up and out, is the (cumbersome but necessary) Planck Big Bang (Black) Hole (collapsed constant (/\)) Horizon. At once the Infinite Multiverse Universe. Again, at both ends always, all at once, the same PBB(B)H (cc (/\) Horizon, the same IMU. The elementary constituency in the set, and the set in each and all of the constituent elements of the set.

You aren't going to get rid of the Big Bang Horizon because you aren't going to get rid of the Planck Horizon. They are one Horizon, the same Horizon. We have universe domicile within the supreme Black Hole Gravitational (G) Horizon, again one Horizon, the same Horizon. It is at once the Horizon of Infinite Multiverse Universe of infinities of universes (of infinities of universe horizons). The aggregate ends up being a micro / macro quantum mechanical soup that includes gravity and a fifth force, push gravity (thus inertialess space) out of the blend -- to vacuum and high energy physics-- of infinities of hub-centers of gravity (g=x) and the infinite set (G) of them all in the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon (G).
Atlan0001
Thus, in reverse: From just thinking about the (high energy) macrocosmic macro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics a logician could infer the probability of a (high energy) microcosmic micro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics without ever having observed one or the other.
I propose that electromagnetic waves propagate in a pressurized GP1 Aether Particle Medium in our finite in volume ageless universe because sound waves have all the properties of electromagnetic waves including but not limited to constructive and destructive interfereance, doppler effect, harmonization , homogenization and sound wave's quantized energy the phonon to electromagnetic wave's quantized energy the photon!!

Atlan0001, please, keep in mind that all forms of energy are observed/given to be derived from matter and not vice versa and that High Energy Quantum Mechainics are not possible without physically real matter particles as determined by cloud chambers!!

Anyway, Atlan0001 will soon have 1234 Posts which reminds me of the Chernobyl Disaster which occured on April 26th 1986 at 01:23:40 Moscow Time at the #4 reactor!!

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Infinite, or absolute, density ('1') = an infinitely, absolutely, deep hole ('0').

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
752
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K