# From a drop of water....

Page 31 - 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.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Billslugg, you stated: "the connection is between space and time".

Speed = Distance / Time. Therefore Distance = Speed x Time. In Newtonian terms.

If, as you suggest, "the sum of distance and time is conserved", then both must be expressed in compatible units. By this, you cannot state that 2 apples + 3 oranges = 5 oranges.
Likewise, you cannot state that 2 miles + 3 hours = 5 miles or 5 hours.

What you can do, of course, is to use a relationship between two quantities in compatible terms.

E.g., 2 apples + 3 oranges = 5 fruit, or

2 red apples + 3 green apples = 5 apples, or

2 girls named Sue + 3 girls named Pam = 5 girls.

So you must make your units compatible.

Using "the sum of distance and time is conserved" you must make the units compatible.

Trying to do this, we get distance +(time x speed) = total distance.

To be accurate, you need to say "the sum of distance, and of distance expressed as (time x speed) is conserved. Or, more concisely, "the sum of distance and time, reduced to compatible units is conserved".

Saying "the sum of distance and time is conserved" is definitely incorrect.

You would not say "I live 5 miles and ten minutes away from work. "It's a mess."

Cat

#### billslugg

Yes, we have to get the units the same, but that's what I can't do. That is why I said there is an underlying connection. "Underlying" meaning "It's a mystery".

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Yes, we have to get the units the same, but that's what I can't do. That is why I said there is an underlying connection. "Underlying" meaning "It's a mystery".

Does this not do just that?

To be accurate, you need to say "the sum of distance, and of distance expressed as (time x speed) is conserved. Or, more concisely, "the sum of distance and time, reduced to compatible units is conserved".

Sorry to be a little pedantic ( ), but you probably know that I am a great fan of Korzybski (General Semantics) and I do try to point out thoughts along these lines.

Cat

Last edited:

#### billslugg

No, I don't "need to say" anything. I have had my say. You can have yours. But you cannot have mine.

#### Atlan0001

No two people have the same real time. No person's time stays at the same rate all the time. Go upstairs and your wristwatch speeds up. Go stand next to a big mountain and your watch will slow down. This due to the gravitational gradient. No two watches tell the same time. No two watches go at the same rate. It's a mess.

There may well be a wormhole, it is not forbidden by GR. There are some practical problems, however. For example, in order to travel instantaneously across the universe, first you must go there and set up the far end of the wormhole.

You can travel through a wormhole FTL, but you can't move a wormhole itself FTL. And a bit of advice if you are getting the itch, lease, don't buy. Wormholes don't hold their value. They evaporate over time.
Wormholes in the macrocosm serve the same purpose as wormholes in the microcosm. They exist like Lagrange points between the stars and galaxies . . . and like Lagrange points they don't disappear unless the mass bodies disappear! You really don't understand step level magnitudes of the microcosm, thus you really don't understand step level magnitudes of the invisible, un-observed and un-observable, macrocosm the microcosm models! Particularly highest and lowest step level magnitudes. Too bad, Bill! Really too bad!

Clocks don't turn on the time of the universe regardless of how hard they are made to try. They always have to be readjusted. The time of the universe (t=0 ('Creation' / Hawking GCS time)) doesn't readjust and doesn't have to be readjusted ever! You, Bill, still don't understand, and don't ever want to understand (if I've read you right when you've addressed it), the equal and opposite constant of light's time advances (future) / time reversals (past) . . . resulting in mutual cancelation to c=1 | t=0 -- keeping a constant of perfect time always.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

REALTIME NOW travelers and observers, in their own spaces, never move off center of the universe . . . never move off center between macrocosmic horizons. Relativity's SPACETIME travelers and observers are always observed to move off center!
------------------------------

"Communicated across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn.

"The best introduction to astronomy is to think of nightly heavens as a little lot of stars belonging to one's own homestead." -- George Eliot.

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
No, I don't "need to say" anything. I have had my say. You can have yours. But you cannot have mine.

Obviously a difference between English English and American English.
Here, "you need to" can be the same as "one needs to" or "it is better to".

It is still a matter of opinion, but here we do not mean "do what I tell you", we can mean "it is considered better or advisable to". Of course, one can still disagree on the importance, or otherwise, of adopting a particular line of action, but here, there is no intended rudeness as would be attached to "do what you are told". Anyway, there was no intent on my part to be rude in any way whatsoever.

It might better be rephrased as

One might better say "the sum of distance, and of distance expressed as (time x speed) is conserved".

Or, more concisely, "the sum of distance, and of distance expressed as (time x speed), expressed in compatible units, would be more appropriate".

It also did not help my composition writing this at 1.56 a.m.

Cat

billslugg

#### Atlan0001

I think the total distance, local-relative, in term of space from the collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of the Planck (BC) (BB) Horizon of Creation to here -- anywhere and everywhere here is -- is a universal constant of 300,000k. The total distance, local relative, in term of equivalent time from the same Planck (BC) (BB) Horizon of Creation to here -- again, anywhere and everywhere here is -- is a universal constant of one second. I think, I believe, that jives with what Planck, Einstein and Hawking, among others, had to say on the matter. (c=1 ('1' ('unity'))).

Last edited:
billslugg

#### Atlan0001

Is there a particle-wave existing to define and represent the physic of 'chaos', including quantum chaos?! The 'chaos particle-wave' up scale in magnitude to the time advancing (bang) from the Horizon 'verse' / time reversing (crunch) to the Horizon 'anti-verse'?! I think so, represented by the positron and anti-proton, anti-quark, and so on antimatter, anti-mass, negative energies, and negative infinities (verse and anti-verse totaling (zeroing) -- mutually canceling to -- a collapsed cosmological constant (/\) of base2's '0' . . . of a fundamental set of binary base2, infinite '0' and/or finite '1' (thus NOT a place holder))!
((+1) (-1)) = 1/0.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Reminder:

Stephen Hawking wrote that it was difficult for him to think 2-dimensionally, much less 3- and more dimensionally. He could do it though.

You can spend years describing the dimensions and verses of a multiverse multi-dimensionality and still so many will never rise to see and think 2-dimensionally, much less 3 and more!

One example of the multiverse multi-dimensionality in action: The so-called "early universe" being observed right now, a "spooky at a distance," existed observably forever ago, exists observably right now, and will still exist observably to forever.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

As I see it, when physicists cancel one infinity with another infinity, zeroing the infinities, they didn't lose or destroy either infinity . . . they just set them aside as no longer in play in the play of their now finite models.

The non-local, non-relative, infinities of horizon universes are never tossed, lost, or destroyed in any way, either. But there is a superpositional lift from the infinities I keep describing that continuously recycles those countless universes. ETERNALLY CONTINUOSLY recycles them in continuous turnover in a never-ending instant of Planck (BC) (BB) CREATION! Once more, the infinities of horizon universes are never tossed, lost, or destroyed in any way! They are their own forever continuous renewal project in the above setup.

billslugg

#### Atlan0001

I've continuously repeated myself that the microcosm models the macrocosm! That the two-base (basre2) higher energy / lower energy field state (electron and proton fields) "atom" modeling the same two-base (base2) superpositioned field state (Horizon of Creation and SPACE / REALTIME NOW / SPACETIME) "universe." The self-similar two states (base2) fractal zooms gravitational structure of universe (alternate levels of higher energy smooth and lower energy coarse grain chunky magnitudes reducing to a fundamental base2 strongly interactive "set and reset")!
---------------------------------

"The microcosm models the macrocosm . . . and vice-versa...." -- Atlan0001.

"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...." -- 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet', by Arthur Canon Doyle.

"Brevity may be the soul of wit but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

However slight or not so slight, there is a probable Trojan. A transitional stage -- two energy stages actually -- energy state to energy state, to energy state. Low to high. High to low.

Or maybe not. Maybe instantaneous and no realization of a transition from energy state to energy state ever even occurred. No realization of any difference in the two relative states though there is (thus another 'Schrodinger Cat' where the universe actually has it both ways at the same time, a difference existing (the final result) and no difference at all existing (transfers high energy state <--/--> low energy state, between states)). Quantum states, don't you know, whether microcosmic "atoms" or macrocosmic "universes", states.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I was just watching a video on what a wormhole might look like.

As far as I can see, a wormhole doesn't look like anything until you begin accelerating (such as at 1-g of constant acceleration) and shrinking the local-relative universe's SPACE (thus dealing in magnitudinous faster than the speed of light) drawing point-B ever closer to you at your point-A. You are warping space, saving time, finding that you are making and going through a wormhole. Wormholes are vacuum's soliton bubble waves all over the place. The better the vacuum, the better the wormhole, the straighter the line (versus curvature), the faster the potential soliton bubble wave through it.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Think about it hard! What do you observe in accelerating contraction of the distances of the local-relative universe?! What you would observe is not you accelerating up in space and time traveling faster than the speed of light! It would be the region of your destination gradually hurtling up or down in a curvature, or from a side left or right in a curvature, or from directly ahead like a bullet coming directly at you, toward your rendezvous point with it (wherever as yet unseen and un-observable that would be) at impossible speeds!

You can't observe the invisible, un-observable, reality of universe (spontaneous entangled, entangling, concurrent (t=0) REALTIME NOW (t-0) eternal instant) until you meet it! The observable universe (light's coordinate point SPACETIME photo-frame holography of astronomy) is a cartoon universe you can manipulate at will -- redrawing the local-relative hologram of what, where and past-future histories light cones 'when', at will -- with continuous power accelerations!

The picture of the accelerating expansion of the universe becomes a picture of accelerating contractions of local-relative SPACE and SPACETIME, gradually saving you almost all the REALTIME NOW of the real-time universe you could wish for . . . that you can "make do" for you!

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Further realizing, to further clarify, from #760 - #763:
The masses and energies, and superposition structures, of microcosmic "atoms," and the masses and energies, and superposition structures, of macrocosmic "universes," are corollary (naturally follows in one -- either one -- modeling the other)!

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
A drop of water contains typically rather more than a thousand billion billion water molecules.

Cat

#### Atlan0001

A drop of water contains typically rather more than a thousand billion billion water molecules.

Cat
Don't get relative! Sherlock Holmes could have been describing one molecule of water as his "drop of water"! In which case, your drop of water could amount to his ".... an Atlantic or a Niagara ...."

If just the least qubit of water information, your drop of water could amount to a universe's worth of water in Holmes's estimation. Size is relative ('finite' is relative, infinite (in fact infinitesimal) / infinitesimal (in fact infinite) is NOT)!

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

All well and good maybe, but how do You explain Saturn's rings?
Size is relative, microcosmic and macrocosmic. How do you explain quantum physics (such as the extents of the electromagnetic interaction, the strong interaction, the weak interaction, the gravitational vectors, the electroweak interaction, and the strong gravitational interactive magnitudes (fractal zooms set and reset to fundamental base2 ,'0' (null unity (chaos)) and/or '1' (unity (order)))) when classical physics are relative?

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Per Newton's three laws, it would take enormous amounts of energy to disorder the system:

(AC (hotter)<-de-|entropic equilibrium|-de->AE (colder)). A "Mobius strip" and/or "standing wave":

Counterintuitively, the near energy-less drift of systems is to settle into equilibrium 's "order" . . . Hawking's "Life Zone" of the universe (of universes)! They have to be forced hard, extremely hard (such as in the black hole of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN), out of ordering:

((+1) (-1)) = 1/0,
-----------------------------

"It takes a born meta-physicist to puzzle out 'cosmology'!" -- Atlan0001.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

How would that form a ring structure?
Either you don't pay attention and think about it, in the first place, or you develop amnesia in an awful hurry! I'm not going back through 770-odd posts to describe and explain rings and curvatures, and vectors and vortices, among other geometries, for you.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

For those among us who may lack ability and sense to think . . . and do their own research:

From the above article:
"In September 2023, astronomers reported studies suggesting that the rings of Saturn may have resulted from the collision of two moons 'a few hundred million years ago.'"
--------------------------------

"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

A thought (a realization from among many, many, such herein in this thread in doing my own picturing, my own modeling) of my own from #774, that someone has no sense to look for and see to realize (just digging their hole deeper and deeper to fall into):

"Counterintuitively, the near energy-less drift of systems is to settle into equilibrium 's "order" . . . Hawking's "Life Zone" of the universe (of universes)! They have to be forced hard, extremely hard (such as in the black hole of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN), out of ordering:

((+1) (-1)) = 1/0."
-----------------------------

"It takes a born meta-physicist to puzzle out 'cosmology'!" -- Atlan0001.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

"Dipolar electromagnetic condensate, #79-#80:

Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K