"Infinite," In All Its Variation, Reduces To "Constant". . . . And The Constancy In "Constants"

Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
Just that, "Infinite," in all its variation (infinite, infinitesimal, infinity of, infinities of. . . , etc.), reduces to "Constant". . . . and is (you ready?) the infinitely supporting sustaining -- infinite base bedrock / backbone of -- constancy in "constants."
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
I would suggest the obvious, that the Uni- (the uni-) in Universe (and in universe) means '1'. But, you can go no lower than binary '1' and / or '0'. That means 1, 2, and 3 dimensions, because there is always the third dimension (3), thus the multi-dimensionality, to those two dimensions (2), that (1) and / or (0) dimensionality.

Example: there are times, plural (an infinity of times and / or, if you'd rather, space-times (including a calculus of infinitesimals)). There is the naked singularity of All Time (T=1), the infinite of a Big Crunch / Big Vacuum (Hawking's "Grand Central Station" as I see it to be, regarding its physicality). Then there is Timelessness (T-0 / t=0), the Planck Big Bang collapsed Horizon (Hawking's "Grand Central Station Clock", the dead center point of a multi-dimensionality). T = 1 and / or T=0 and / or -- 3rd dimensionally, an infinity of times (space-times) and branching times (space-times / universes / timescapes) also reducing to (t=1) and / or (t=0) . . . in the mirroring from the Big Mirror.

There is nothing that is not in motion, an awesome motionality, in the reality of the unobserved / unobservable universes (u) of the Universe (U). Very, very, little is in motion in the light show of the observable universe, and that only in the nearest foreground local of observable universe. It means that there is something vast, awesomely vast, in the difference in space and time physicality between real and relative.

It is a Multiverse Universe.
 
Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
This is the best place for me to go over the constant of t=0 (little 't') once more, though I've covered it in a few posts before.

Einstein dealt in "past-future" without any mention of "now'." That I know of, and his best friend Kurt Godel certainly knew of by what he described of time, Einstein never denied the existence of "now", just never alluding to the existence of it, either.

Now, I've reached an understanding, to my satisfaction in my modeling, of how the train works. It does not work past (-) --> present (?) --> future (+)! It works past (-) --> future (+) --> now (t=0)!

Actually, and better yet, pasts (-) --> futures (+)--> now (t=0)! Einstein's soft rendering of time, past (-) - future (+), is maintained soft, but now (t=0) is universal quantum entangled hard constant. and tied to the Big T=0 of the Planck Big Bang (E) collapsed Horizon. . . . and to Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2).

All travelers, particles, ships, planets, solar systems, galaxies, you name it, are always in motion and / or animation. Everything unobservably real of every paralleling universe (u), the make up of every paralleling universe (u), which, thus, includes the cauldrons of the universes -- in whole --themselves, is in motion and / or animation. Universally in motion to -- universally traveling time and / or space-time to -- the universally hard constant of now (t=0). . . always connected to the constant of the Big Time and / or Timelessness of the Planck Big Bang (E) collapsed Horizon and . . . . (the Horizon Universe (U) never to be reached nor even approached, and never to be left behind either -- always maintaining its Horizon, its place, as constant horizon (C = 300,000kps = 0 (the Universe's 0-point. . . . And by the way, the Cosmic singular exception to the rule that proves my model's rule of everything that is "object", universally, always being in motion / in animation, is that the Universe (U) is never in motion, never has been in motion, never will be in motion, in either space or time since it is the overall "Constant"; the overall totality; the Cosmic All; at once the non-local background Universe (U) to each and every local foreground universe (u) of an infinity)).
-------------------------

Planck Big Bang (E) || Big Crunch (M) / Big Vacuum (C^2)
Energy (E) || Mass (M) / Vacuum (C^2)
M = E / C^2
Mirror
E = M x C^2
------------------------
C = 300,000kps (rounded off) = 0 (Universe's 0-point constant)
C = 300,000kps
and / or
C = 0 (that constant of unreachable, unattainable, collapsed -- binary -- Horizon).
Third dimension of the binary twain: planes of, and / or relativity of, 'velocity'.
------------------------
(past (elastic) (-) --> future (elastic) (+) --> Now (t=0 (constant!))
(pasts (infinities of) (-) --> futures (infinities of) (+) --> Now (t=0 (constant!))

---------------------
It's a Multiverse Universe.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
555
103
1,060
Professionals themselves are now writing many articles painting vastly different pictures of what they think the Universe is and how it works (questioning previously widely accepted views and conventional wisdoms). Some of it will end up being "gibberish" eventually, but few people are trying to take knives to their views and suppositions, because if there is even the tiniest grain of possible gold, whatever, out of all the professional and layman ore, so be it.

Science, such as the science of the chemical and/or atomic makeup of a 'chocolate cake" isn't anything I'd even try to pursue. But the apex of the Multiverse Universe, so to speak, is a hugely broad and deep panoramic -- a wide open -- frontier to any interested hobbyist layman as well as the certified professional : including all the free thinking professionals who've espoused such vastly differing views on the possible top, bottom, background, and even some of the constants (such as whether the speed of light is such an absolute ceiling in an open system -- such as, is the space traveling time traveler, particularly if his ship has continuous thrust (continuous acceleration), traveling countless past-futures in interstellar or intergalactic space-timescapes subject to the speed of light limit regarding such "time travel" in space -- as it is in any locally and narrowly closed system). The traveler out amidst countless stars and/or galaxies in space (out amidst countless past-futures in space-timescapes) will deal in an enormously blue-shifted local universe ahead (acceleratively contractive if powering), and, simultaneously opposing, an equally enormously redshifted local universe to the rear (acceleratively expansive if powering). The traveler will also be dealing in the macro-verse version of the principle of uncertainty. He will have some idea of coordinate position, but not a clue as to velocity since what he will observe is a surrounding and encompassing cocoon of timescape.... in no way a landscape.

So you are telling me Wolfgang Pauli once said, by way of your telling me "this is not even wrong", that mass at the closed systemic constant of the speed of light will certainly not be an infinite mass (a Big Crunch Mass) -- and that there is no such thing as time stop action framing at the speed of light. And that there is no speed in the Universe less, a very great deal less, to a negative 300,000kps less (potentially observed), than the speed of you as the observer sitting dead still, relatively speaking, in your chair on Earth. Although that "negative (-) 300,000kps less" (relative constant) just happens to be identically the same as the positive (+) of 300,000kps (relative constant), to an ultimate binary result of (c=(+/-) 300,000kps) locally to observers-travelers / (C=0) to the Universe (U).
--------------------------------------

The widely accepted view of the observable universe at large, at its greatest observed extent in light ; in light time (thus within the framework of a most narrowly strict and restricted, compacted, closed systemic relativity with no motion, no animation, to it beyond a certain stop action point), as being conclusively the reality of all space and time, could easily be said to be: "A strictly logical conclusion, such as madmen are liable to arrive at after starting from radically wrong premises."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS