The Shape of String Singularity and the 'Theory of Everything' (the 'TOE')

[Atlan0001]

I've called it "our relative 'Virtual Universe' framing dimensionality, Hawking's "Life Zone" and his "Grand Central Station" of universe. Now someone might try to tell me what I describe appears to be right out of the movie the "Matrix."

I say certainly "Matrix"-like framed universe yes, but movie?! No way! A Virtual Universe, a universe of relativity, superimposed upon a substratum of microcosmic micro-verse and macro-cosmic macro-verse. In no way does this Grand Unification Theory (GUT) of physics, literally 'The Theory of Everything' (TOE), qualify simply as a game simulation or hologram projection.

The Science of Complexity has described the natural world (the big picture of it!) as having few but those few "absolute" rules. Chaos Theory's one side of the coin of Zoom Universe is zoom to entropic disorder blur, and I've presented that zoom picture here on the forums. Now I've begun realizing a superimposing picture upon that zoom level that is Einsteinian relative universe, Einstein's Universe of Relativity, or Virtual Universe. A very different and anti-entropy take on that Chaos Theory chaotic / disordered / blurred zoom level. Very definitely not replacing it but superimposing upon it, inlaying into it, as duality, the very picture of "Grand Unification" . . . Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of 'Everything' and its Grand Central Station clock at its very center with that single hand singularly and always pointing to 0-point (midnight's end and beginning point . . . and noon's halfway point). The two-in-one singularity of that zoom level is a dimensional lock indivisible. As indivisible as entropy is inexorable. An eternal entity of cancellation superimposed into a physic that can have no end to it. That the very inexorable physic itself is the background or underlaying ground bedrock property of its own inexorable cancellation.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've described a frame of light as being a single-sided 2-dimensional frame of light that can never be caught from the rear, the back side, because it has no rear, no back side to it that can be chased to be caught (the nothing being a well, a void, a vacuum, a hole or 0-point (portal))). I've gone further in describing the reason for this being that gravitational singularity is built-in to it . . . is that side that literally isn't there that makes a light frame the single-sided 2-dimensional frame of light that it is, and the speed of light the universal constant of 'c' that it is.

Then I've gone several times before and after to describe the double-sided (+/-) 300,000kps (from '0'kps or the rest or proffered frame of the Einsteinian observer) aspects of the coin of 'c'.

Sometimes I don't even notice at the time the hyper-dimensionality of what I've managed myself.

Take the simple diagram in post #22 where I've illustrated two sides, slower than the speed of speed of light and faster than the speed of light of the same coin of 'c', regarding' the observer and the traveler observer, distance, and expansive and contractive triangulation. Look closer, think multi-dimensionally into it, and see what even I didn't see at the time I worked it up. 1) What it describes in post #22 (including a marking of an event horizon ("Bop")) : 2) Hawking radiation as the same information being instantaneously on two sides, on both sides, of a black hole's event horizon at once : 3) A quantum entanglement of a single as two at once in two places at once but still the same thing in just one place : 4) The Gravity 'Mirror' of the collapsed constant (the cosmological constant (/\)) of 'PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon' mirroring two sides of a singularity : 5) 'Flatland' in the two Casimer effect-like dimensions of it, the two Casimer effect-like entities, I describe . . . and so on in a multi-dimensional Infinite Multiverse Universe.

 

[Atlan0001]

That redshift grows really tiresome. If it isn't expansion as in the Creation Theory, then it could still be expansionism of a different order, or something else entirely.

At one micro-light second's distance away from anywhere (in 'Flatland') what is the distance between past and future ('Flatland' today) at that distance in space? At one light second's distance away from anywhere (in 'Flatland') what is the distance between past and future ('Flatland' today) at that distance in space? At one light year's distance away from anywhere (in 'Flatland') what is the distance between past and future ('Flatland' today) at that distance in space? At one billion light years distance away from anywhere (in 'Flatland') what is the distance between past and future ('Flatland' today) at that distance in space? At ten billion light years away from anywhere (in 'Flatland') what is the distance between past and future ('Flatland' today) at that distance in space? At fourteen billion light years...? You see, an expansion not going anywhere, not expanding at all in space, but expanding away in time between past and future with all [distance] gaining in space from anywhere.

P|F
P<|>F
P<<|>>F
P<<<|>>>F
P<<<<|>>>>F

Light is everywhere a time traveler, everywhere an expansionary flood-light time traveler. And it travels many, many, 2- and 4-dimensional crossroads.

Not to forget that everything is moving, shifting place, in the universe, including the universe itself . . . the warp-bubbles of universes themselves both horizontally and vertically. Universes overlaying and inlaying universes, universes passing through universes, regenerating universes -- mass-energy-continuously-out-of-the-void-and-into-the-void -- without end.

 

[Atlan0001]

Just in case someone didn't quite get it above:

F|P
F<|>P
F<<|>>P
F<<<|>>>P
F<<<<|>>>>P

---------------

>>>>PF<<<<
>>>P<>F<<<
>>P<<>>F<<
<P<<<>>>F<
P<<<<>>>>F

 

[Atlan0001]

I fleshed out the diagram in post #22 in the thread 'Einstein's 1918 Solution to the Twin Paradox', post #2. I've now, in turn, brought it back to post #22.

The videos there in that thread were ridiculous in the illustrations and the physics illustrated. The views and the physics from the views just as ridiculous and lacking in realities and dimensions today as they were in 1905, 1915, 1918 and every day since. Most particularly, there being no physicality of the special effects that would belong to the speed of light, thus no speed of light period, to either content or the physics supposedly covered by the videos.

Yes, Einstein was a genius, but when he took his mind's eye trip to the speed of light, he had his eyes crossed. He got the light born special effects deriving from light and the speed of light all wrong, And, so, apparently has everyone since. Again, and yet again, I ask the question that I, myself, have been answering to my satisfaction for 30 years, "Where are the objects and travelers that are always in advance of the speed of light, thus always in advance of the special effects observed in frames of light?!"

I will say this, the same thing Stephen Hawking said about a black hole's horizon and practically the same information being on both sides of it at one and the same time, well the horizon of light is practically the same horizon . . . as I illustrated in my post here #22 and in the thread 'Einstein's 1918 Solution to the Twin Paradox, post #2. Both the observer and the traveler are always on both sides of the horizon of light and thus the speed of light. One observer and traveler observed and observable (slower than the speed of light), the other unobserved and unobservable (faster than the speed of light). Whether dividing up or coming together we, to mean just about everything objectively, are always ahead of it, in advance of it, in the future -- to far future -- to its history (its past), in space and time regarding any observer or observation anywhere any time.

 

[Atlan0001]

This is as good a place as any to say again the many universes (many worlds) aren't inertial but inertialess.

People are really beginning now, thanks to the Webb, to recognize the probability of many universes (many worlds) existing, mixing and matching. In that growing recognition they had better recognize a rim gravity in opposition to centered hub gravity. Neither can defeat the other since the latter is the constituency of the former though the former separates from the latter like the [zoom out / zoom in (here and there)] dimensional levels of Chaos Theory's Zoom Universe., the elemental constituency of a set (the infinity of the rim Horizon (I will identify it as big G (=1 (unity)) being the set of the infinities of hub centers of gravity (g = x)).

Gravity is just one physic of the collapsed constant of the Horizon, the rim of each and every center, each and every universe, of an infinity of centers and warp-bubble universes. Universes themselves always moving and in collisions, mergers, passing and divergence. Between that rim and hub constituency is always an inertialess warp bubble-bubbling vortex-Volumatic space. ...

.... Flatland' is the horizontal spatial dimension, creations and destructions the vertical time dimension through the horizontal, and fbb2 0|1 and 4-dimensionality the opening dimensionality and closing dimensionality. There are two 'Flatlands' in 'Casimer effect' sandwich, as I've presented before, not one, A positive energy matter 'Flatland' universe and a negative energy anti-matter 'Flatland' universe, perfectly matched and balanced, mostly, the two self-similar sides of one coin of an always mirroring horizon (including previously described chain-link-string producing the infinite chained-mail infinite substance of 'Flatland' mirror). Thus, they don't, thus it won't, self-destruct....

To be continued....

 

[Atlan0001]

The Planck (collapsed constant) Horizon of infinity is dual horizon with the Big Bang (collapsed constant) Horizon of infinity. The Planck Big Bang (collapsed constant) Horizon of infinity is dual Horizon with the supreme Black Hole (collapsed constant) Horizon of infinity, all PBB(B)H (collapsed constant) Horizon being dual with the (collapsed constant) Horizon of the speed of light 'c' (= fbb2 0|1 (unity)). 'c' is a universal horizon constant independent of all other velocity.

I came to the realization quite some time ago that there is no such thing as c+v, because 'c' is independently the set of all constituent (relative) velocity (velocities) to infinity.

You have a building with an unlimited number of floors to it. The speed of light constant 'c' is the building housing all floors, and you cannot add the building housing all floors to a floor, any floor, up (+) or down (-). You go up floors, you are in the building. You go down floors, you are in the building. You are always in the building, always in the 'Horizon'.

 

[Atlan0001]

The fifth force and backward/forward engineering the primordial soup.

From post #30:
This is as good a place as any to say again the many universes (many worlds) aren't inertial but inertialess.

People are really beginning now, thanks to the Webb, to recognize the probability of many universes (many worlds) existing, mixing and matching. In that growing recognition they had better recognize a rim gravity in opposition to centered hub gravity. Neither can defeat the other since the latter is the constituency of the former though the former separates from the latter like the [zoom out / zoom in (here and there)] dimensional levels of Chaos Theory's Zoom Universe., the elemental constituency of a set (the infinity of the rim Horizon (I will identify it as big G (=1 (unity)) being the set of the infinities of hub centers of gravity (g = x))....

The Gravity (=1 (unity)) of the infinite rim 'PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon' and the gravity (g = x) of the infinities of hub centers of gravity do blend and between them create a vacuum of gravity which is a force in itself I've described long ago and haven't brought up since, "push gravity," the fifth force.

You can forget "quantum gravity," I do believe. In my own modeling, from all of the above and much more, I've moved to reverse engineer the fundamental, primordial, soup (backward/forward engineering the fundamentality of the primordial soup (cooking the primordial soup, so to speak)) and it comes up a duality, as usual to me. It comes up high energy physics or the entity, and entities, of Quantum Mechanics.

Which comes first, the tree, the trees, or the forest? Neither. The forest is in the tree and trees. The tree is, and trees are, in the forest.

The elementary constituency (the sub-strata) is in the set (the hyper-strata), the set (the hyper-strata) is in the (substratum) elementary constituency (the sub-strata).

One view of a greater Unification Theory (GUT), so to speak. That Mirror mirroring, and those two 'Flatlands' (positive energy matter / negative energy anti-matter) in a Casimer effect-like pairing, in an aggregate mix and match of much more, helped me out immensely to reach this point -- in my view and so far to my own satisfaction -- of seeing in the mind's eye that soup of the fundamental.

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm finally reading 'Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime' by Sean Carroll and almost immediately I read this:

".... The other option is that quantum mechanics represents a violent break from the way we have always thought about physics before, shifting from a view where the world exists objectively and independently of how we perceive it, to one where the act of observation is somehow fundamental to the nature of reality."

No sooner do I read this then I think about how I described a frame, and frames, of light in my thread, 'You are not going to chase--much less catch--any frame of light time history from the rear because there is no rear to it!'

That a frame of light is strictly front, a single-sided only 2-dimensional frame of light time history with no rear to it to be observed, much less chased, much less caught, from the rear. It is strictly observed, strictly observable, only from the front, only in the meeting of it, only in the observation of it, only at any detection of it, as I said in the posts of that thread and other threads and posts concerning it and the constant of the speed of light 'c' tied indivisibly to it . . . ".... where the act of observation is somehow fundamental to the nature of reality."

 

[Atlan0001]

I see and hear finite and infinite bandied about, regarding the physic of these two, without anyone, or so it seems, really understanding what they are talking about.

To deal in 'finite' in physics is to deal in 'relativity'. 'Finite' is the subjectively relative.

To deal in 'infinite' in physics, whether anyone else realizes it or not, is to deal in the 'absolute' as opposed to the 'relative', 'Infinite' (intrinsically infinite (at once infinitesimal) / infinitesimal (at once infinite)) is the objectively absolute (the real absolute). What is defined is a point.

I had more but decided I had too much. Unnecessary and complicated and I didn't really need to add it on.

 

[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...." -- 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.

 

[Atlan0001]

The (high energy) macrocosmic macro-verse of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics, whether it is recognized as such or not, or even wanted to be, is loaded to the brim with quantum weirdness.

Also the fifth force gravity (G (as I label it and recognize it as such), is the draw of PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon closed up to the rim of the universe . . . and all universes, The constant of the draw (G) of the infinite set (the infinite forest), versus (opposing) the draw of each and every hub center elementary constituent (tree) (g=x) that makes up the set (the forest). That constant of draw is all otherwise a "push gravity" to the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon, the Horizon of IMU.... It doubles as, and means, a gravity (g=x) opposing "push gravity" to the Horizon, the fifth force (G).

The blend is a vacuum, at once Vacuum Mirror (mirroring masses, matters, and energies to two sides of the coin, to two entities opposite in charges), and filling that [Casimer effect-like] created coin of vacuum is the quantum weirdness and fundamental soup of (high energy) Quantum Mechanics. The doubling as, the effectively push/pull duality of the gravities, then in fundamental house and home with the three other forces, means unification in and of five forces.

Sheez, wake up and smell the physics! Do you, can you, realize just how much higher energies are -- how much greater the mass and energy field is -- non-locally toward the infinity back of the collapsed constant of the Planck Horizon, the Big Bang Horizon, the Big Balck Hole Horizon; altogether the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon, the highest energy field and horizon there is (thus the fastest evolutions possible as well), than they are anywhere and everywhere locally, relatively speaking that is!

 

[Atlan0001]

Quantum entanglement and move of above two posts through cyberspace from 'From a drop of water....' completed. That's all for the 'momentum', er, for the 'moment', now, folks.

 

[Atlan0001]

A traveler is going to travel from point A to point B. Point B is 10 light years from point A. What of [light time] does he observe to his front closing to point B and to his rear opening from point A?

p = past
f = future
<|< = flow of time future to past
>}> = flow of time past to future
(00ly) - (10ly) = light years observed / light years traveled, proceeding and receding.

01) (p<|<f) A (00ly) < ship > (10ly) B (p>|>f)
02) (p<|<f) A (01ly) < ship > (09ly) B (p>|>f)
03) (p<|<f) A (02ly) < ship > (08ly) B (p>|>f)
04) (p<|<f) A (03ly) < ship > (07ly) B (p>|>f)
05) (p<|<f) A (04ly) < ship > (06ly) B (p>|>f)
06) (p<|<f) A (05ly) < ship > (05ly) B (p>|>f)
07) (p<|<f) A (06ly) < ship > (04ly) B (p>|>f)
08) (p<|<f) A (07ly) < ship > (03ly) B (p>|>f)
09) (p<|<f) A (08ly) < ship > (02ly) B (p>|>f)
10) (p<|<f) A (09ly) < ship > (01ly) B (p>|>f)
11) (p<|<f) A (10ly) < ship > (00ly) B (p>|>f)

Now isn't it odd as hell? The way time flows exactly equally ascending into future and descending into past, observed, for the traveler.

 

[Atlan0001]

I added at the end of my post #36 my post (#3) from 'The Expanding Universe Lie Is Too Blatant'. Also, sdding it to the original of post #36, post #3 of 'From a drop of water ....'

It's an Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe, don't you know.

 

[Atlan0001]

Time-space and Space-time are not the same thing:

Time-space is how many times, or how much time, within a fixed frame of space. It's time to space.

Time is the warp-bubble.

Space-time is how many spaces, or how much space, within a fixed frame of time. It's space to time.

Space is the warp-bubble.

Also:

Expand in space (in every sense), expand in time (in every sense). Contract in space (in every sense), contract in time (in every sense). We on Earth are in trouble!

Most professional physicists, it seems to me, have had it backwards for over a century. Thus, most leaders, government officials, politicians, and schoolteachers (thus students the world's future decision makers).

 

[Atlan0001]

Boy, do I enjoy the arguments, and engaging in them every so often when the direction interests me, regarding the expansion of the universe.

But it does point up that I understand something, most recently out of my post #41 just above, most people do not. That the expansion of the universe doesn't really go anywhere. It goes "nowhere" at all! It expands into "nothing" at all. Can you understand what "warp-bubble of space" really means?

It means, ultimately, a perfect balance in place between expansion and contraction, two sides of one coin! Yes, the universe is expanding, exactly contrary to the contraction (it simply isn't going anywhere). Yes, the universe is contracting, exactly contrary to the expansion (again, it simply isn't going anywhere). Just because you are [of-a-piece] with the contraction side of the coin, and don't see it, except as a dimension (possibly the ultimate dimension) of gravity of course, does not mean it isn't occurring: Does not mean it isn't a [warp-space] dimensionality in being on quite a Volumatic scale.

Please read or reread my post #34 here in this thread.

 

[Atlan0001]

Adding on to reading or rereading my post #34 to help with post #42, reading or rereading posts #35 and #36 would also help. There are others, several others, but I think these are just enough to think on it.

 

[Atlan0001]

I hadn't intended to bring attention here to this, but now I think I will if you haven't read it already, so I can bring up something alternatively to something in the article.

A New Kind of Symmetry Shakes Up Physics | Quanta Magazine

I am going to leave this as is and give the continuing story in a later post I will edit into this place.

 

[Atlan0001]

Something, also, I've been repeatedly pressing about something else (and not connected to photons!), the measurement of the speed of light! It is universally 'c', everywhere the set, the 'Horizon', of all velocity (and or momentum) all at once. It can't, it won't, be measured until it is "observed!" And, the frame, the virtuality, the field, the 'Flatland', the single-sided 2-dimensional, once "observed", once fronted, once confronted, once met, its measurement will be nothing but the constant of 'c' as a measurement from emission of light to receiver of light. What will measure is the [history], the light time [history], emission or re-emission, reflection, to receipt, as a "result" rather than "in-progress" speed. Not the wavelength, not the frequency, of light. There will be photons -- from out of 'nowhere' -- "observed" on the spot!

The traveler in space cannot possibly measure "ground" speed of space travel. He can only potentially measure light time distances from estimated points in space (light time history points) to his estimated coordinate point in space (his own 0-point here/now) and translate it to some speed. The resulting measurement of the warp-space (that is what it will be) might even come to some speed above, to far above, the speed of light. Something no observer will measure for his observed light time history! Many observers! Tracking many travelers in many places with many clocks, not one clocking time well as the observer would observe, not one keeping good time, or the same time between clocks . . . and no possible agreement among them on the traveler's actual position or velocity, all a principle of uncertainty.

 

[Atlan0001]

Its late and I've yet another article I read later today, getting even more involved in my picture, my modeling:

Gravity can transform into light, mind-bending physics paper suggests | Live Science

I no sooner write about photons, essentially a photon field! filling up the universe, then I read the above and realize a graviton singularity field! of all things filling up the universe right with it!

The big difference in the fields is "observation." The first, the photon field of the universe, known by a few of us to probably be there, doesn't show up until "observed." The second, the graviton singularity field, and fields, at the very least the three dimensions of gravity I've described, and a few more and other dimensions, realized as obvious to many and taken for granted. Now there is this one and I did describe it without connecting the dots, trying to slowly work it in so to not to be dismissed out hand. Now I see others were working on it as well and not being anything like slow to get the kernel realization out.

I've said in threads that frames of single-sided 2-dimensional light time history in transit have a kernel of graviton singularity producing the side to them that isn't there (as contradictory as that may sound it isn't contradictory at all to quantum weirdness). A graviton singularity field pervasively permeating (sic) the universe would be central to producing infinite possibilities to "inertialess" universe, something else I've gone over several times before.

I said in another thread that gravity's mirror mirrors light through and across the universe. Now it is coming out that the connection between the two may even be much closer than that . . . a duality.

Maybe is! I, for one, am not saying it is quite yet. That may change when I think it over a little more.

I do consistently push that the universe is a universe of "is", never "was!" It is primal / fundamental binary base2 0|1. It is beginning, middle, and end, all at once in 0-time! And that, of course, means "early universe" too! It is multi-dimensional multiverse parallel tracking, being on multi-levels of universe this universe is and all universes are. Not a 1-dimensional one-track single stream of nakedly single universe like an utterly small and narrowly focused, utterly one-track, utterly stuck in 1-dimensional thinking, mind. Simply put, a larger, deeper, picture is there than the one in the textbooks and in the minds of most physicists.

Stephen Hawking said that the day physics and philosophy, physicists and philosophers, split and went their separate ways was the worst day in history for both. That it was a very lose-lose proposition. Without philosophy, at least the outlines of philosophy, a physicist can't really think. Without physics, at least the outlines of physics, a philosopher can't really think. And for the historian dealing in the lessons and natures, literally the physics of history, in order to be really into the field, the what's, why's, and how's, especially the what, the why, and the how, the complexity and chaos, of the larger picture of repetitions in history, he had better be in the trojan position to both philosophy and physics, philosophers and physicists.

 

[Atlan0001]

The thing to know is that light fills to overloading the universe with every brand of 'light'. So much so that it turns the universe mostly dark in much of its breadth and depth of [face]. That there is to light time histories being gravity mirrored across universes an infinity of crossroads broad and deep. It isn't that light can't and won't escape a black hole, it is that black holes can't and won't escape overdosing on light. Turn on the light universally in the universe and black holes would be the brightest most light filled bulbs in the universe.

Here is a very interesting article on the subjects (plural):

Gravity can transform into light, mind-bending physics paper suggests | Live Science

Reminder: The way I see it the universe is a universe of "is", never "was"! Gravity's mirror mirroring light time histories at the speed of light is fast through that mirror everywhere mirroring. Mirroring farther distant [past | futures] is even faster! "...the PBB(B)H (cc (/\)) Horizon, the highest energy field and horizon there is (thus the fastest evolutions possible as well) than they are anywhere and everywhere locally...!"

 

[Atlan0001]

Since it seems that some are trying to keep this thread read, I'll put this here instead of elsewhere, for the heck of it:

I've diagrammed the separation of reality and observation quite a few times. But not the possible very great separation of the two.

Think about it. If I tried to diagram a very great separation between a traveler traveling so fast into the unobservable future light cone as to really outrun by far his light born own history being observed in the past light cone by the observer, he could quite possibly be standing beside that observer observing his own much younger ghost-doppelganger still in transit going away and coming back home (per the twin paradox observation made and taught as the reality by teachers teaching the twin paradox to students).

While I'm at it, I've stated that it is gravity's 'Mirror' that mirrors (at 'c') light through and across any distance, any field of space and time anywhere at all. It might be thought that I separate the two, the light and the mirroring of it. I have before, but no longer. Putting the 0-point (portal) graviton singularity into the single-sided 2-dimensional frame of light time history as its 0-point center point always, and its side away from the singled-sidedness (that makes it single-sided), its side that isn't there, that is never there, never to be chased, never to be caught, means a made singularity of light's speed of light and the ghost reality that is the graviton singularity. "Unity" as in (h = 1), (c = 1), and (G = 1), begins to mean a "unity" more real than the conventional math and physics' given. One I already think is there, picture as being there, and deal in.


"Yesterday upon the stair. I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. Oh, how I wish he would go away." 'Antigonish', by William H. Mearns. In my picturing and modeling, that single-sided 2-dimensional frame of light time history and 0-point (portal) graviton singularity -- as the man met on the stair who wasn't there and still isn't there -- can never, and will never, go away . . . thank goodness.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Think about it. If I tried to diagram a very great separation between a traveler traveling so fast into the unobservable future light cone as to really outrun by far his light born own history being observed in the past light cone by the observer, he could quite possibly be standing beside that observer observing his own much younger ghost-doppelganger still in transit going away and coming back home (per the twin paradox observation made and taught as the reality by teachers teaching the twin paradox to students)."

A expansion of the above. A variation. A continuance:

The observer and traveler observer stand side-by-side as I forecast above (regardless of the impossibility in spite of the physicists who believe it possible). This one may be quite possible:

The two are standing side-by-side on Earth within the solar system, within the Milky Way, and look farther out to the macrocosmic universe to a real possibility of observing the Milky Way's "much younger ghost-doppelganger still in transit going away and coming back home (per the twin paradox observation made and taught as the reality by teachers teaching the twin paradox to students)." It's the same trick of observation I describe in the post and first paragraph above not being the current, concurrent, reality of the universe, but this is so huge a trick of observation it could very well fit as a rendition of Sean Carroll's description concerning quantum mechanics, ".... where the act of observation is somehow fundamental to the nature of reality." That is, seen! by physicists to be "somehow fundamental to the nature of reality." The problem for me being that I would agree as to this observation being a current and concurrent "nature of reality." It being the reality of all possible youth of Milky Way-like galaxies; a macrocosmic equivalency to, and translation of, some microcosmic phenomena.

My problem in agreeing would be that some, no matter what! unless I spent many more posts explaining what I have already spent many posts explaining, would see it as my contradicting my own picturing and modeling, which would not the case at all. I'm not a 1-dimensional thinker, visualizer, and painter, and my picturing, my modeling, isn't and won't be 1-dimensional. I won't be locked into any reduction to such 1-, at most flat 2-, dimensional pictures and models.

 

[Atlan0001]

I've pushed the (collapsed constant (cosmological constant '/\') ([past (future) | future (past)]) Horizon of the universe in many threads and posts, so I only mention it in passing.

I push that the so-called "early universe" on the horizon of the universe is a universe of "is" creationism, never "was" creationism (as in a fable of once and once only, "once upon a time"). I now introduce a new realization (for me) for the early universe that "is" rather than "was":

The universe's, and universes', "Memory" ([past (future) | future (past)] and always)! The permanent physic of "Memory" is on display fronting the constant of the Big Horizon. The constant of "Memory," is the "early universe" that always "is" rather than "was."

It, the cosmological physic of "Memory", is [of-a-piece-with] the gravity cone of space (the space cone of gravity) | the light cone of time (the time cone of light). It is [of-a-piece-with] spacetime.

I'm not the only one dealing in memory, and memories, as physics, though I'm the only one, I do believe at this time, to have lifted it and expanded it to where I have lifted it. Quantum Mechanics, and I think too, String Theory, deals in memory as physics as well.

The 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)' of infinities of universes (u) [never] loses its "Memory."

 

[Atlan0001]

The 'arrow of entropy' points to the inexorably permanent evolution 'back to the future' ('forward to the past') of the universe being a constant dimensionality of the universe . . . the universes. It is (permanently (constantly)) always young, always middle aged, and always old, in its life . . . its past and future histories.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Infinite" is an absolute, an attribute, a quality, regarding something, anything, and ([infinite (infinitesimal) | infinitesimal (infinite)]) describes primal / fundamental binary base2 (0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and (+/-) parity) absolutely to a tee!

"Finite" is also a quality, though in no way the absolute that "infinite" is. "Finite" being a relative quality, its only connection to "infinite" being some "potential" to become [infinite absolute] in quality.

Their sole connection to math and numbers, or quantities, is the quality of "description!" Description of quantities, the quality of the quantity and quantities, not the numbers . . . not any numbers involved!

One, 'definitely' me for one, might say the "0-point (portal) string singularity" (telescoping gyroscopic) absolute of primal / fundamental binary base2 (0 (null unity) | 1 (unity) . . . and (+/-) parity).