The 3-Dimensions OF Time That Spring From Time Reversal

Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm belatedly joining some of the QM physicists, in coming to a realization that "time reversal" does actually physically exist. Their reach down an in toward the Planck horizon being exactly that; dealing in exactly that. And, again as I've mentioned, Stephen Hawking was one of those QM physicists noting the possibility of time reversal and, regarding him and his insight, projected its possibility of [actual physical] existence to the Universe at large as a 'superposition', a 'correlative', time. In other words, like other positives and negatives, a negative (-) physicality of time co-existing with a positive (+) physicality of time. Therefore, then, a cancellation to a third dimension physically co-existing -- able to exist -- regarding time, being '0' (my interpretation (maybe among some others, like maybe Hawking himself): "0-point" space and time).

It's one thing to deal in it regarding the universe at "small", but what of the universe at "large"? I've been there, done that (as the saying goes), over and over again, here in threads, as the 'Big Bang' (collapsed horizon of infinity; collapse [in] horizon from finite to infinite (logical "antonyms" and opposites), and vice-versa) being a forever constant horizon, a super-positioned 'correlative', and never having been a one-time, one-off, event. But the only road I could see from here to there was a blackhole wormhole in time from event horizon here to the "naked singularity" of all such crunches as one and the same Big Crunch / Big Hole -- Big Vortex -- there to the other side of the Big Bang / Planck horizon in a Multiverse existence of Universe (like Stephen Hawking indicated concerning a certain particle: The particle has six faces, is six different individual particles; yet [is] just one particle).

How could time in the universe at large be both time forward and time reverse, like from here, now, to the Planck horizon in the universe at small -- (I'm labeling) each physical manifestation, positive (+) time and negative (-) time, to a result -- in mutual cancellation -- of yet a third dimension of time ('0' ("0-point")) co-existing with the co-existing two? In passing, I may have briefly, tentatively, realized a way how in another thread.

The light from Andromeda comes to us... and passes us by. The time frame of the light is a negative 2.2 million years in time. In line, at a point a million light years from us, that light time frame of the light from Andromeda will be a negative 3.2 million years. In growing negative time, 2.2 and 3.2, and so on millions and billions of years. In line, at a point of 13+ billion light years from here, and from Andromeda (wherever local, relative, here is but won't be then (the Big Vortex)), the time frame of the light will be a negative 13+ billion years and more. There will have been collective accumulation of light and timeframes to that point (from an INFINITY!). I would say, Multiverse-wise (multidimension-wise), a collective accumulation of dimensionality, of mass energy and heat, toward Planck horizon energies and heat; toward Big Bang energies and heat -- toward Big Bang's "time" horizon via negative time (via time reversal). All blackholes' wormholes to the 'naked singularity' of the Big Crunch / Big Hole (Big Vortex) being the ultimate first (other) ending physical manifestation of time reversal (of negative (-) time), this, the Planck / Big Bang collapsed horizon (the close up to this side's relative finite of the non-relative infinite behind it) being the penultimate second (other) ending physical manifestation of time reversal (again of negative (-) time).

Those 'places' of penultimate and ultimate are "superposition correlative." They exist in Universe (U) dimensionality all their own. A traveler can only travel (in a future of continuously powered travel; a future of travel at constant acceleration and deceleration) local, relative, 0-point to 0-point, to 0-point, in and thru an infinity of bubble universes (a dimensionality inclusive of infinities of universes within universes deep) in any direction from any departure point. That is, unless he is willing to leap into a blackhole. Even via a multiverse of wormholes (an infinity of point wormholes existing everywhere within the infinite of Big Hole), the travel of a traveler already in them at all times -- never out of them -- could only be '0' ((+)(-)) point to '0' ((+)(-)) point, to '0' ((+)(-)) point.

-----------

*Added*

I've realized that in the above, in addition to all else, integral to all else, I've described a mirror mirroring.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
"Is there a multiverse?" Of course there is and I want to deal with what it is further now, here. So, here I go at it again, just a little "deeper" and more drawing out of dimension than before, maybe (I hope (I grasp -- visualize -- the picture but painting it herein on the forum can be a little rough)). According to QM a single can be many, including dimensionality. Again referring to Stephen Hawking, a certain particle can have six faces to it, be six different individual particles, and still be one and same particle. A multi-personality multi-dimensional particle ([and] several particle entities "superposition correlative" or all at once), representatively a multiverse. The Universe (U) is such. Multiverse and Universe are in fact one and same 'binary' coin... singularity of two... one... zero... or three dimensions (take your pick). According to some, no such thing as "binary" dimensionality ("and/or" dimensionality) -- which by definition is multiverse type multi-dimensionality -- exists.

I've always hated the 1-dimensional views, and one-dimensional stringing, of the Universe (U) and the universes (u). Both are multi-dimensioned Multiverse and multiverse. For one example, It's said there isn't enough matter mass in the Universe (our universe in particular) for gravity to do another Big Crunch. That of course presupposes one-dimensionality. It's certainly one-dimensional thinking. The infinity of superposition correlative blackholes have been eating, piecemeal, finite local, relative, universes forever, their combine of interior wormholes wormholing universe matter and energy to a combined other end in Big Crunch 'naked singularity'. There is far less matter mass and energy in this generation of universe -- where we sit, our generation of universe -- than there once was (in a continuity of flow of "once was" from BB to 0-point here, now). There is a forever constant procession of disappearance, graduatingly from the Big Bang, but it is analogous to something like tectonic activity but occurring at incredible speed; upper older less energetic crust accelerating in expansion because of the youthful mass, energy, and heat, in lower newer strata, next generation strata-crust pressing up against it. Newer, younger, generations of universes [dimensionally deep] pressing against what little is left of the older generations and one day to have totally replaced them -- and themselves being on the way from Big Bang to blackholes' wormholing to (Big Crunch / Big Hole) Vortex and being replaced in their turn in forever constant space and time processions both ways at once -- past>'future' (+) and future>'past' (-) superposition correlative and even observable (to a degree if one perceives it rightly).. As I've indicated before, the redshift of light should account for at least FOUR dimensions rather than just the ONE I think astronomers do. It is a quality of expansive separating in rapidly graduating piecemeal demolition and disappearance of universes (a property of every [finite] universe), inclusive of sinking toward oblivion: As opposed to universe (u), or universes (u), maintaining existence [whole] and moving in a one-dimensional string of space-time [stretching out] toward infinity and eternity in deep freeze.

It was a mistake to keep our local relative universe (u) whole and think it would contract whole in a string of Big Crunches then going bang in following strings of Big Bangs. Or to think now that what we observe of its generational remains now is and was ever its whole. It was a mistake to think that the Universe (U) was never losing [finite] universes (u) piecemeal; is never losing [finite] universes (u) piecemeal; even as it constantly flows / gains [finite] universes (u) primordially whole from the constant (closed up) horizon of the Big Bang dimension of the Universe / Multiverse in their place... and ever beginning demolishing them from that point on. As Stephen Hawking said, again, the way to escape an end in a local, relative, universe is to travel toward and into that flow in any direction out from the ending. The traveler, of course, would not travel exactly into that particular Multiverse dimension: Which travel is only to accelerate toward 'c', flattening toward a single-sided 2-dimensional frame flatter than a pancake (as the saying goes). As long as the traveler travels 0-point center of infinite to 0-point center of infinite, offsetting bubble universe to offsetting bubble universe, without being unlucky all over again, Hawking's traveler, and my traveler, I think one and the same traveler, should have it made.

That Multiverse that is at once the Universe, and those multiverses that are at once universes, is and are wonder and wonders to behold if one can see them richly multi-dimensionally rather than a death wish poverty stricken one-dimensionality. They would be even more of a wonder if they could be reached to... in the span of one life that is, like Hawking envisioned.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
What Stephen Hawking was really saying in what he said about life traveling in any direction away from end point, but not absolutely toward the Multiverse dimension of Big Bang collapsed horizon, which is to say toward the Universe / Multiverse dimensionality of [(Big Bang / Planck / 'c' / ?)], was that there is wide life zone / dimension, including zones of creation of zones for life, on many planes of 0-point center to 0-point center, to 0-point center of the infinite; bubble universe to offset bubble universe, to offset bubble universe. Staying in the zone, or staying in the zones of capability to create the same, the traveler and/or travelers, the frontier life, "should have it made." Of course I totally agreed... and have remained in total agreement.
 
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
"In addition to all else, integral to all else, I've described a mirror mirroring." -- Post #1.

The infinity of gravity in the naked singularity of the Big Crunch / Big Hole (Vortex) Universe cannot possibly translate to the infinity of [infinitesimal / finite] [point / bubble] universes except in one way only. It will have to have one more dimension, one more superposition correlative, to it. That being 'Mirror'. It is its own mirror mirroring itself, most especially 'gravity', to infinities of translation.

The split of the one double-sided Mirror frame to two single-sided 2-dimensional entity frames, a separation but still just the one, of mirror translation on the one side, the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'. The other nakedly singular side of mirror mirroring being the Big Crunch / Big Hole (Vortex). On the one side (|), the infinite. On the other side (|), the infinity of.... ((||) (| |) (| |)). There is no 2-dimensional entity flatter than this double-sided entity ([a] two single-sided entity (sic)) of Mirror mirroring.

The infinite mass and density of "basketball" sized Big Crunch -- the "basketball" in fact being nothing but a titanic 'finite' -- precursor to Big Bang, illustrated and presented as the reality of beginning before beginning, is actually too bizarrely 1-dimensionally finite and relative to be the reality of anything truly infinite. It has no multi-dimensional Multiverse (Universe (U)) translator and thus no multi-dimensional Multiverse (Universe (U)) translation. It has no 2-dimensional framing to it (it is not even 'binary' dimensionality). No possibility of mirroring. Particularly not of mirroring -- of translating -- the infinite of Universe (U) to infinities of relative universes (u). Most particularly not of mirroring -- of translating -- Big Crunch's infinitely dense massing, its infinite of gravity, to relative infinities of gravity.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
Quote
Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]:1.1 It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.
Quote Wiki

Does anyone else think that QM are sometimes used to describe hypotheses dealing with rather larger scale phenomena?

Cat :)
Chaos Theory's zooms of fractal self-similarity. Folds into Complexity Science's maxim, when things get too complex (too grainy) they will inevitably collapse (transduce and reduce) to the simple (to the smooth): When things get too simple (too smooth) they will inevitably collapse (confound and compound) to the complex (to the grainy).
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
I want to further define the generations in depth of universe from its beginning in the flow of Big Bang to end in blackholes' wormholes to Big Crunch 'naked singularity'. Generations in continuous flow are in actuality planes in depth of universe. A lot of universe just beginning demolition and disappearance at Big Bang's end of streaming to a finishing end in final demolition and disappearance in the last of a string of blackholes, the total gone to the singularity of the Big Crunch, a future -- in succeeding space-time planes -- of Big Bang to Big Crunch of time reversal. Parallel, co-existing correlative positive (+) / negative (-).

Look out at the universe and see / observe nothing but histories. No traveler travels anything -- in their observation -- but that relative space-time ghost universe; those relative space-time histories. Real time, real space, 0-point objects in the universe reside the 'dark" of the future, at any distance whatsoever from any [here, now] 0-point. Relativities begin to fission in space-time at almost no distance of separation at all between here and there, now and then, leaving only ghost universe, just relative histories, just a relative stretching out of [relative] space-time, between the separating reals. The picture will go into reverse where and when reals close distance between. The stretching out ends and contraction occurs ending in a merger of relative, observable, ghost and real, previously unobservable, object and traveler. So, when a traveler, whether an inanimate object or animate life, takes off in travel it will be time travel among observable [relative] ghost histories (closing futures to mergers of relative and real in space-time ahead and opening up to increasing separations of relative and real behind: the relative ghost universe falling evermore rearward in time toward the Big Bang collapsed horizon the more forward into a relative future the traveler travels), as well as space travel between unobservable reals. Hopefully, if the traveler is animate life, they won't find their [real] of destination falling into a blackhole end. The [relative] history ahead, though, fast forwarding in apparent space-time toward the reality of [real] should give plenty of warning if such were the case.

Multiverse multi-dimensionality is both wider and deeper in an almost infinite of various dimensionality than most could ever imagine, much less realize, extending as it does herein in depth of planes from point of constant (continuously flowing) Big Bang beginning to dead end final demolition and disappearance in blackhole to Big Crunch singularity and, potentially, right back through the depths of the stream of planes of universe from dead end final plane to Big Bang beginning frame -- though if the traveler tried that kind of massively particle collider-like acceleration toward the single-sided 2-dimensional frame of the ['Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?'] they would end flattened in single-sided 2-dimensional frame "flatter than a pancake" (again as the saying goes). But, it is always curvature in that [in-depth] direction of plane that is the shortest straight-line distance between two destinations in any local universe, which means, at one and the same time, between universes.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first (cause)? Which follows (effect)?

Which came first the trees in the forest or the forest in the tree?

Which came first, the infinite Universe (U) of the Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum ) or all of an infinity of black holes / wormholes in spaces and times to the binary infinite of a 'naked singularity'... in an infinity of infinitesimal point (finite bubble) universes? Or are the two just different dimensions of exactly the same thing? Is there no real difference because, really, the two are one? The irresistible force of the immovable object. (I've realized I must more closely identify "vortex" to the Big Crunch since in my own modeling I must closely identify "vacuum" with the Big Crunch's alternate being of Big Hole. I was staying away from doing that but such alternate being, to me, needed a little more dimensionality.)

Which came first? Which comes first? Which is cause? Which is effect? If it, this infinite and infinity, is binary "and/or" it is in fact side by side; it is multi-dimension; it is multiverse. It is one... and many.... and one.... at one time.... at all times. The "many" not only counting all blackholes throughout all spaces and all times, but all gravity, all centers of gravity whether shallow or deep, everywhere... and every when -- including all of the infinity of the disappeared as well as universe generations yet to be completely piecemealed away of their material existence, totaling infinite. All that is being lost via black holes is being promptly gained via white holes (totaled up, via Big Bang+). There is loss and there is gain in planes of generations of universes. But: Total loss = 0. Total gain = 0.

The infinity of finite local, relative, universes (u) is nothing more nor less than the alternate being, the alternate dimensionality, of infinite Universe. Which came first white hole(s) or black hole(s), the door(s) marked 'Entrance Only' or the door(s) marked 'Exit Only'? Which comes first, the chicken (the end product) or the egg (the beginning product)? The chicken is in the egg, the egg is in the chicken. The [end product] is in the [beginning product], the [beginning product] is in the [end product]. Time ((+)(-)) is in timelessness ('0' and/or '1'), and timelessness ('0' and/or '1') is in time ((+)(-)). Such just continues, finite being in infinite, infinite being in finite (finite being to infinite -- since finite does not not actually exist to infinite, the entity of infinitesimal (an infinitesimal of an infinity of infinitesimals (thus, in mutual cancellation (mirroring), an infinity of finites))).

Once more, a traveler in space is at once a traveler in time, which should be obvious to anyone, especially any astronomer, looking out to our local, relative, universe. Observationally it is nothing but histories crowding up and finally merging at the far end to one horizon common and constant to all of the dome in every far end point of it. But no traveler travels one directionally (one-dimensionally) in time. It will always travel bi-directionally (two-dimensionally) in time. Forward up through time. Rearward down through time. It will leap forward in time forward, and leap backward in time behind, at one and the same [local] time. The leap backward in time to the rear will cancel out the leap forward in time to the fore, regarding space-time for a result in '0' and a constant measurement, locally, of the speed of light to be 'c'. Exact location in the universe, as it will be navigating among shifting speeding histories in a ghost universe, will be uncertain until it closes upon a relative destination. Only then will relative velocity, relative space, begin to be realized.

White holes (totaled up, again, the 'Big Bang' / 'Planck' / 'c' / '?' collapsed horizon) have home in the deepest ocean beyond 14 billion light years (the deepest ocean depths -- short of the infinite -- that Rod likes to realize the existence of and mention whenever he gets an opportunity to do so). they being, again, the door(s) marked 'Entrance Only', and, of course, will not be situated forward in space-time (will not be situated this way upward toward the ocean's present surface.... one might say the planes, zones, of lesser compression (|||| | | | | |) as black holes finish their job in finishing off from within the now pale horse generations of local [finite] universes (those final end products going out as well, making way....). To accelerate in expansion to infinity is simply to accelerate in expansion to the infinite Universe (U), the infinite of Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) and its alternate being, just about where I started this post.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2020
169
37
110
So exactly what would a white hole be? White holes infinity wide -- but not quite infinity deep -- totaled up in Big Bang?

Geez! Planck (Planck level) stars! As a form of an infinity of quantum fluctuation(s)? Or as a form of an infinity of quantum field fluctuation(s)? The hottest shortest lived (shortest lasting) stars -- existing one instant gone the next -- of the universe (but, as flash spark(s) deep, never-the-less the timelessly steady state (in 'total') physical entity single-sided 2-dimensional frame beginning of streaming material existence to an infinity of finite universes (u) from the infinite Universe (U)).... writ small in the extreme of relative small (thus very, VERY, [largely] distant (to an extreme of relative "distant")).... as far as we are concerned and as far as relativity is concerned? The horizon of a difference.

I've been describing ['Big Bang / Planck' / 'c' / '?'] as singular horizon, and in Planck horizon level white hole 'Planck stars' the jackpot may have been hit... at least in so far as my mind's eye modeling of a Cosmic All at largest and smallest (one horizon!) is concerned. And to my own satisfaction at the very least.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY