Although ideas several years old at this
time, Date written: dec30 2008
The notion that electrons travel around a
nucleus and do so because the charge of
the electrons are equal and opposite of
the nucleus, infers that electrons have
mass. This mass, proposedly equal to
parity with the mass of the nucleus.
The argument comes to the nature of mass.
Mass seems to be presumed. Spin, charge,
energy and mass seem a likely model when
any of these are presumed.
However, this proposes that atoms are
spherically enclosed with electron orbits
forming the perimeters; the electrons
having mass and spin and therefore
exhibiting charge.
If there be an electron shell, where
charge is differentiated and is so held in
a relationship with respect of the
nucleus, and that charge specifies the
structure of the atomic model, it is my
notion that electrons are a wholly
unnecessary component. The charge thought
to enforce their position and function
being the entire specifier.
If atoms are spheres of charge, to which
the presumed electron finds place, it is
my notion that atomic function should
remain complete in every aspect without
the presence of the famous electron
particle.
The charge sphere itself should suffice
utterly.
If there are no electrons, there should
then likely be no Protons. And present
theory shows protons merely charge/spin
packets of quarks.
If a volume we should hold as a proton is
really the function of quark packets, it
starts to become obvious that there might
be no particles what-so-ever in nature of
the sort presently ascribed by theory.
As then, all entities are relationships of
differentiated power, their nature
appearing, for us, as charge.
This hypothesis points to a universe of
one material in active process denoting
charge and differentiated power.
The activity and differentiating power
provide it’s spatial characteristic.
As a characteristic, space can then be
extrapolated as being an inherent aspect.
What of such aspect?
A great amount of attention has been paid
to our notions of space. Kip Thorn and his
peers have speculated about various
possibilities for a foundation of the
universe by examining ideas regarding
absolute small.
Their notions suggest that as absolute
ZERO space is approached (from our point
of view, big as it is), reality may break
from an imagined stability of spatiality
to a spike and trough surface, and even to
what they describe as possibly foam-like.
A kind of spitting and frothing texture. A
proposed violence of moment put to each
ZERO point from the otherwise stabilizing
aspect and bearing weight of the extended
Universe.
It is a notion very much like that of a
film under pressure.
It is my contention this model is
incorrect.
It is incorrect because we have to this
point only considered space from a single
viewpoint. A not well considered
viewpoint. There are different coordinate
systems that propose various ways to
discuss the always understood viewpoint
regarding space. Always, the same notion -
one in which the same nature of space is
presumed.
I will assert that the reality of space is
different than has been presumed. That
space is a fundamental characteristic of
reality. That entities are made of space,
entirely. All aspects we have considered
as charge, mass and spin are space itself.
That space itself is an aspect of the true
reality itself. And that space should be
thought of as not stopping at the
aforementioned and forethought absolute
ZERO space.
Spatiality should extend below the point
of absolute ZERO, into, from our point of
view, a condition of inverse space.
A model quickly then emerges of
positively-going space (that includes the
presently understood space in which we
find our universe) and inversely-going
space - which includes interrelation
aspects of charge and seemingly far
reaching aspects that are lately lumped
together under the banner of dark mass and
dark energy.
Aspects of spin and charge and
differentiation are entirely the tension
between space and inverse space in all
aspects of view, what we would consider
micro and macro. -The preponderance of
differentiated powers of the strong and
weak force, electromagnetism, of atoms and
spatial condition, of gravity, and
galaxies and black-holes; all are caused
from the tension of space and inverse
space.
Space and inverse space are the same. We
have a universe of one material.
|
|
Obscure Notes off my Hard-drives:
It may be that a defining
separation of spatial identity is not absolute;
but pertaining to specific regions.
Perhaps we sit on a foundation of ‘not’ - where
what differentiates into collapsed and expanded
spatial characteristics (our normally seen and
understood universe) are dissociate and not
absolute.
This suggests powers of differentiation - inverse
space (mass/energy) with it’s outward pressure,
tied with obverse space (normally supposed
mass/energy) and it’s outward going velocity and
gravitational forces, would be ameliorated by it’s
juxtaposition with that that has not so
differentiated. The powers should be different and
calculations might examine this. |
It may be productive to call space,
"gravity:space" much like the Einsteinian,
'space:time' but where space:time, of course, is a
geometrical abstract, gravity:space should talk
about the specific states of cosmological reality.
large and small, distant, envelope and
non-envelope, spatially positive or inverse.
The concept of gravity-space will allow
mathematical precepts to be constructed. It should
place a perpendicular differential between gravity
and space.
|
Various perspectives of gravity may
start to be explored by considering the "Strong
Force" - where enclosed envelopes, we have thought
to be electron valance, are utterly happenstantial
and do not exist - and where Nuclei we see as held
by strong force are happenstantial but where the
force is differentiating knots which are one end
of a scale, characteristics of space being the
other - and gravity as lines of direction between
them.
My thought, of course, has been differentiating
entities are obverse aspects (the seen) having
inverse aspects as unseen partner. Entities having
spacial identity have inversely going partner
identities which are not seen because they
non-spacial.
If the strong force is the "suck" of things not,
gravity is the suck along gravitational lines
toward the strong force. These might be not
different from space - where space is an aspect of
gravity or even gravity itself - an opposing
aspect of strong force - being the marrow and glue
of mass.
Entities seem like storms where inverse entities
may be more likened to strings. These strings
could be continuous but could behave more like a
hairy substrate - where positively going knots, or
storms, dance in ever changing negative fabric -
like a drop of water dancing on a hot pan.
|
Inverse
envelopes (inverse mass) create inverse
gravity. which is seen as an outward force
for obverse envelopes (mass). |
|
Inversely going space creates
inversely going (outward-going) gravity.
Outward-going, or inverse gravity shows as
repelling force in obverse space.
This suggests that the nature of inverse and
obverse space are opposing gravity fields.
The attraction power of inversely going space
(space surrounding black-hole), shows turbulence
caused from the crush of opposing forces - inverse
and obverse gravity.
These achieve balance and become locked. Stars are
born. Their +Gravity attracts them toward
positive-going gravitational objects - which is
also helped by the outgoing force from negative
gravity of the black hole.
Negative space = positive gravity in obverse space
Negative gravity = repelling force (creating
obverse space)
Positive space = negative gravity in
inversely-going space
positive gravity = impelling force creating
inverse space
inverse space=gravity
gravity impels inverse space
______________
Therefore apply Galileo's gravitational constant
|
As my notions for negative space
may account "dark mass" and "dark energy" - the
root to talk about them is perhaps amending
general relativity with negative components in
place of "space-time" - which may then also be
replaced with other math elements
|
Note to Tim
I remember thinking that a spectrum of radiation
would encase a black-hole. That the perimeter,
while still somewhat dark to the outside would e
series of concentric eggs of different levels of
radiation, where differentiated radiant aspects
would find an orbit. They would create a pressure,
where some be transformed - and some would
descend. Some, of course, would be reflected back
away and again be confronted by an inward-drawn
field radiation that would be quite chaotic. This
outside area might easily be found to be a kind of
skin.
This could only find a likelihood in the dormant
phase.
|
scribble notes
massive material (pos/neg space) conjoins
potential in proximity. As knots of space (massive
material) become more they would pull tension from
without. Mass being a thickening and “empty space”
a thinning.
If black holes are neg space, neg space would
exhibit gravity - OR an interaction that appears
to be gravity.
the model starts saying that mass can now be
considered the conjoining of pos/neg space in
proximity and that this, in sufficient amount, or
size, creates tension in surrounding pos space.
This brings the notion that space is possibly more
in itself. We’ve already postulated that space
makes up the fabric of the universe. Therefore,
pos/neg space that would make up “mass” should
only be an aspect - since light bearing material,
what we consider as mass, is but 4%.
This presumes that our detection of radiation only
shows 4%. aspects of what we have called mass that
add to the radiation tide are only 4%, or whatever
percentage of the whole as we are now estimating
the quantities of our universe. The rest are the
interactions of fields, of which, our “mass” is
only an aspect.
atomic clocks (that are mass objects) speed up as
they gain distance from massive objects, leave
away from the contortions of space in proximity.
Light bends less
|
A field entity is one end of it’s
opposing inverse. An opposing inverse. When one
obverse field is exchanged for another, an inverse
field is exchanged.
Gravity should interact perpendicularly and might,
or probably, operate inversely.
Therefore gravity is a dimension and in fact, sets
the orientation.
The orientation of directionality is a figure
prescribed by a ratio of powers within the gravity
fields - (that is: the placement of relative mass
which create countervailing directionality from
multiple sources - much like the pull of
come-a-long pullies).
[examine particle results with attention to
precise substance-make-up of test and with
orientation with respect of earth’s gravity]
|
-s has perpendicularity with +s (m)
-s as gravity is really perpendicularity with
+going space or mass
|
letter to Tim
Or General Relativity that postulates a curvature
of space around massive objects; that
directionality is toward the center of the object.
-That, in an orbit, a satellite is actually going
in a straight line but through a curve of space
that bends the satellite path around the object,
following the curve.
However, what is the actual nature of “gravity”
such that space is curved? It is a
perpendicularity with respect to positive-going
(normal) space.
But all “things”, atoms, protons and neutrons,
quarks, etc are actually made of positive-going
space. Powerful fields that present as “particles”
(there are no actual particles anywhere in the
Universe). They are all entities, when seen, in
positive-going space; - where such material, all
has inverse, negative spatiality - and that
inverse space has perpendicularity (with respect
of positive-going space) - which looks, for us, to
be a directionality we associate as gravity.
Negative space and positive space are the same
stuff. Where we see positive-going stuff, there is
equal stuff of the inverse; and it is
perpendicular and causes a directionality.
|
The key is in reflected light. A
cause of light, stimulates space - that is: sets
waves into or of space itself. Light arrives
through a media (including the atmospheric gas)
that translates it in a form to a substrate which
then drinks in or makes use of aspects of
radiation and then perhaps reflects the rest back
into the media.
What it is about the substrate and the media that
waves of space are seen as light? What are the
aspects of waves such that we see color? What are
the aspects that we do not see?
|
It may be
that the standard model as constructed for
particles is false. Fields might only
exist at the begging of some outside
insistence - a force placed, causes a
result we might interpret as a field.
Regardless, a field or a perception of a
field might not have a specific core, or
nucleus but a dynamic seating of inverse
order. Therefore we have to examine and
include an overall environment when
considering a mapping exercise.
|
|
Point ZERO becomes the threshold of
perpendicularity. But is it the same? Would this
point be an area of change - such that, perhaps,
our perceptions see layer or threshold laden
differentiation? A skew in observable reality.
This we call the quantum world but is seen
stretching into our common, ratio-laden
electronics, hydrodynamics, rainbow world?
It makes sense that the point ZERO is an utter
illusion and this “point” is an open field of all
points - and that therefore we see the effects of
the inverse in all things.
|
Perpendicularity is from our
perspective. Spin is it’s invert.
|
To
talk-group:
The nature of matter is different than has
been presumed.
The problem with people is that they hear
or learn about physics and presume it is
real.
The quandary is then placed to refine what
is presumed so that it works.
It goes from Rutherford to Maxwell to
Einstein to Dirac.
All are wrong.
dark matter is the new missing aspect -
the aspect, however, is not missing at
all. We are the ones who have been missing
- the way it all really is.
There are no separations - and there are
no particles (as the discreet entities
implied). All is quite well attached, in
fact, a complete whole.
The missing is not missing.
As long as people hold on to the
misconceptions of the past and demand that
these misconceptions be a part of theory,
they’ll end up being disproven.
It’s the monkey trap - they absolutely
won’t let go. They don’t even know that
they should.
However, it is exactly what is necessary.
Let me put it another way: Everything they
taught you is wrong.
And without getting into proofs - and I
will not publish here, let me just
simplify: There is a complete reality and
it is that all differentiations are made
of the same “substance”. That substance is
the only substance in existence and it is
in complete states of differentiation.
The whole thing is made of one stuff. It
couldn’t be more simple, really. -02
|
|
What
would the relativistic consequences of
going the speed of light, in a close orbit
to the earth - through the atmosphere,
close to the ground?
How would observers appear from the craft?
And how would the craft appear to
observers on the ground?
Could this be translated to travel between
planets? |
|
Differentiations
run to rails on either side of the common
medium. This should be considered when
designing for travel. - This is where
radiation finds it’s greatest velocity;
where gravity and trajectory pulls to
either side. Paths of radiation are the
natural floor, which might be violated to
advantage.
Such a floor is in relationship with the
+/- ceilings which would provide violent
turbulence in places.
|
|
What is
the phase of colored light? For
reflections might be from opposite phase.
This is an important aspect. The nature of
light and it’s interaction and the nature
of reflective substance.
|
|
Work out
full ramifications of the notion of
equivalence of speed of light, time and
space.
|
|
Examine
the spectrum of radiation - what
differentiates within “space” - is this
“space”? (space differentiating massive
objects) ~cosmic rays are highly
energetic protons~
Would planets gain mass? What effects
present from Solar wind?
|
|
The
position of atoms in a field can be
thought of as one side of an envelope that
is proposed by it’s atomic environment.
What would seem an atom is an oscillation
and it’s position is dictated by local
pressure.
|
|
As surely
as light from a distance allows the view
of the so presented past, so light that
has long passed us is a view of earlier
states, or collections of the past before
our time. Light from the earlier past is
receding from us. What does light that is
receding look like? Does it effect in a
detectable way, light that is coming? Does
it effect other radiation in a detectable
manner? |
|
On the
Great Attractor:
Inverse space creates a grand
perpendicularity - where our normal view a
simple artifact - infact our human view is
probably somewhat created by assumptions
that are taught.
Where the “curve” of space is created by
an utter perpendicularity within - and
that also extends to the profound
distance.
It is also possible that there are grand
folds in the contexture - that perhaps
hides an amount of inverse spaciality
equal to our understanding of the
proportionality of normal massive
entities: galaxy groups -and the spacial
area which we understand they hold.
This could be seen as having the same
effect as purported to Black holes,
drawing all towards it. - except that
galaxy clusters would simply disappear
from view.
|
|
The theory has to have a
scale where the micro-world becomes a part
of the galactic world that becomes a part
of the spacial manifolds. That the
differentiation of space is complex where
positive-going spacial entities
(preponderance of mass and massive
objects) and flattens out in relatively
vacant areas but which are contorted into
folds toward inversely-going space.
That there is spacial tension between
positively-going massive objects and
inversely going “negative knots” the pull
of which create the veneer of a spacial
manifold between them.
This might be based on an idea where the
spacial-tension between positively-going
inversely-going space is gravity.
|
|
letter to
Tom
The heavens are huge, waffling inverse
manifolds. And space also folds down into
massive object’s (planets/stars, rocks,
etc) inverse spatial aspects, which are
entwined with positive-going aspects.
These aspects are highly knotted.
Positive-going spatial aspects grind up
and knot up with the inverse and become
what we see as mass.
However, this knotted up stuff we call
mass, while very excited, is sitting
inside a much wider and more dynamic
manifold field. Kind of like a flotsam
froth with clumps of shellfish
floating in an endless sea. Except, of
course, it folds around into an inverse
not-sea. Space folds down in that manifold
just as it folds down into this planet.
While there may be little vortexes, we
call black holes that the flotsam circles
around, there may also be huge folds in
the fabric of space that suck disparate
galaxy clusters from vast distance - like
leaves heading for a drain.
|
|
Answering
Tim’s email:
First, they are trying to unify disparate
math. The understanding of exactly what it
is that the math has been propped up to
describe - is almost what is purposefully
avoided, in want of a current fame.
Math is and forever will be an abstract,
that is: not reality.
cartoons.
But then, that’s what we humans think
with. We are cartoon makers.
So such is consciousness. For humans.
Imagine a neuron - over to the left. The
size of a rhinoceros, and long spindly
tendrils reaching 50 feet over to another,
off to the right. - A signal runs over and
charges the rhino and ignites it into
throwing a signal off, to a series of
rhinos just out of sight.
Huge storms of signals blast in the skies
above you - as fast as lightening. And
after a couple of months of sky watching,
you realize a thought is forming.
Well, also -
Through meditation, perhaps, or if one
became altogether too excited, the
constant rush of thought - of inner
diatribe, might back away leaving a
singular experience. Yet what is seen?
Because the brain has made the images that
we experience as sight - and so, a
secession of “thoughts” leaves an
experience of visions.
Regardless, the brain makes the images -
that’s the main job, to create the images
we experience as sight.
With no images, or thoughts, we may think
it possible to simply “experience”
But so it would be. An experience. An
individual.
I think brains are vast, organic machines.
I have designed mechanisms - abstractions
- cartoons, if you will, that perform the
tasks of thought and experience, of
learning and memory. To a point where, I
believe the structure could be used as a
template against real studies to map real
brains.
However, being a vast machine - it’s parts
are profoundly reducible. Yet we can see
reality becoming infinitely more where
brains and their resident personages are
forever defined and therefore finite and
separate.
I have contemplated what a point of zero
space might be - where within what we
experience as the expanse of space, any
point could be considered as having no
space, a point of zero space. This would
be spatially below quarks, below all
“things”.
Of course, space would likely recede yet
smaller, in fact exactly further below
zero as all the expanse of space we could
think to make up our impressions of the
ever expansive universe.
If we could determine below zero space, it
would be observed as inverse. A nickel
falling below zero space would appear to
be an inverse nickle.
But then, every point of zero space would
define all space as merely points of zero:
therefore no space. So space is both
expansive space and utterly inverted space
- at the same time.
There is no point of no space for all
points are the same spatial character. And
quarks are storms of space. And protons
are storms of quarks. All made of the same
stuff. The real stuff.
So what is this big brain machine - with
it’s disparate neurons firing to create a
dance of experience? Each firing from way
over there to way over here, from a fluid
running state to state? How many times
does this engine turn over before we
humans slowly find an experience of the
world before us?
Because, otherwise, we are begging to
suffer the belief that our consciousness
is an aspect of the basic function of the
universe itself, not a product of a vast
and wonderful brain specifically; and that
brained creatures signify a deep
importance.
I wrote Alan Watts once, telling him to
imagine a squash plant. It nosing up
through the soil, spreading it’s leaves,
growing it’s buds; growing the blossoms
and fruit. Growing brown, going rotten to
provide it’s own fertilizer for it’s seeds
as it rots into the ground. Imagine the
whole process of the year - and then to
imagine a fast-forward as 300 generations
of the squash plants rise, flower and die
away to each succeeding generation.
And then to imagine that he was one of
those squash plants.
And then to imagine that there is no
beginning nor end of the generations of
squash plants. The 300 specified
generations were just so he could imagine
it.
In some ways, yes. Energy is how we
relate. If someone hits somebody on the
head with a hammer, he says, it had a
certain energy. Energy becomes an aspect,
hammer, head + energy.
Things vibrate - at a frequency and at a
certain energy. But if we slow it down -
so it looks like a house-fly in
slow-motion - then the “energy” seems
different. If we slow it down so we’re
bored waiting for each cycle - the
“energy” really seems different.
So maybe “energy” is simply our very
prejudiced view. And perhaps utterly
non-existent. Maybe if we were snails, we
wouldn’t think about energy.
I think we are machines. The only question
might be whether we are more.
|
|
While
Magnetic waves appear to create the
perception of time, electric waves move to
the inverse spatial aspect (equally below
zero-space or through spatial envelope
equilibrium). Time then retreats,
exchanging places with space (electric
wave).
|
|
Space is
both obverse, as people and present
science has always assumed AND inverse
space (what present science has never
considered), at the same place and moment.
-Both obverse and inverse at the same
moment.- We and everything we see are
resulting perturbations and made up
entirely of this same obverse and inverse
substance.
EM radiation may change with respect to
direction and observed speed from the
contour effects of spatial manifolds.
There may be places where (o/i)space
becomes too ‘stretched’ to provide a
normal physical backdrop for physics
observations.
|
|
Check
light as going in and out of inverse
space, or oscillating between obverse ad
inverse space - does this mean space only
seems this way from the view of an
observe? Does inverse space dictate what
the percentage of how light seems? Such
that an answer to the nature of light lays
in what happens with light that we believe
there is directionality from a source to
an observer. Check on phase of the
elements of light - magnetic and
electric/directionality. Magnetic and
electric are noted to be in a 180 degree
dance, check frequency. check spectrum,
check phase. relate to substance.
|
|
Possible
alternate Hypothesis: That positive-going
Quark packets are pulled into Inverse
space and held there, under a blanket of
an evenly charged Quark zone (a kind of
zero space DMZ). Causing inflation of
universe.
|
|
Galaxies
are the detritus that is caught
surrounding “black holes” - which show the
sponge-like fabric of how the universe
appears to us; seeing that space seems a
glue that is both positive-going (spacial)
and inversely-going (the opposite of
spacial) at the same time and from all
perspectives (we might endeavor). The
essence of reality is the true nature of
what we can think of as this quality to
“space”.
The universe has contracted and created
these black-hole entities around which the
‘stuff’ we see has accumulated - and also
where positively-going space is pushing
and competing to form a spacial pressure.
Therefore a math of gravity can be placed
based on the total amount of material in a
given area and the total amount of object
mass; - for these show the positive and
negative spacial potential that is the
only interacting considerations. All other
considerations are ancillary and should be
addendum.
|
|
Examine a
notion where the dimensions are subtracted
from one or more of each other - to talk
about an inferred inverse (for present-day
math lovers).
|
|
Examine
light from a viewpoint of spatial
interaction. If waves are alternatively,
“electronic” and “magnetic” and the
troughs of each are inverse - and become
present in inverse space; examine also
that waves expand spherically from a place
(or time) of origin.
|
|
If we
draw a dimensional horizon, it can only
have meaning if it suggests perpendicular
travel; - which necessarily creates the
second dimension. This line, however
suggests an exponent of size.
This notion asks that spacial dimension be
attached to size.
|
|
Bigger things are
seen. Radiation is small. Radiation is
dimensional. Name the dimensionality of light.
Name the travel of the dimensionality of light.
What is the spatial dimensionality of reflection?
There may be well be dimensional ‘storms’.
If general relativity describes geometry, its
mechanics may also be used as a description of
dimensional characteristic. An established
description of the trajectories of subatomic
particles, taken in terms of dimension alone may
help describe dimensional nature. |
Another:
if a volume of inverse (space) has enough
positively-going aspects (our mass) to
push them out from itself, it might be
that a further, positively-going aspect
has exploded away from the inverse; and
from which, our “mass” sees as going
negative from it’s wholesale retreat.
It has left away from the inverse volume,
creating the tension of inverse and
anti-inverse (positively-going aspect),
where the speed of its retreat creates a
negative pressure to the relatively small
“massive” or baryonic elements we see as
our universe. We would exist, perhaps, as
a temporary although seemingly evenly
tensed protuberances between the larger
inverse and anti-inverse aspects,
retreating from each other. |
|
The
questions about the universe may end up
being resolved into considerations of
dimension.
Firstly, xyz is preposterous - other than
as originating from a simpleton’s view, of
course, and then having mathematics built
around it. -The math being perfectly fine,
etc. (2+2 is fine as well)
However, there may be a dimensional
characteristic which will be inherent, at
least for a human point-of-view (as
opposed to an infinite dimensionality -
even though dimension itself may be simply
human ignorance). |
|
March 20,
2012:
For the last few years, I have considered
an abstract where positively going space
(that of spaciousness) should be in
balance with a negatively going “inverse
space”. - That objects of baryonic mass
are storms of differentiated space - or
differentiations of force caught or
created between these potentials and as a
result of them. That every direction
should see a fulcrum of a point ZERO
between these absolute potentials of
positively going space and inversely going
space.
However, the idea that a point of ZERO,
arbitrating between extremes, might then
evoke a universe made up of contiguous
points of ZERO absolutely; - where no
space would exist, other than as an
illusion created by the brain - which
should be the case if there is a point of
absolute ZERO space, then becomes dubious.
Now, I am thinking however that both
positively going space and inversely going
space are constant potentials of the same
contexture and that no point of ZERO may
be found - or found to be a normally
occurring feature. This still allows an
inversely going space as an integral
aspect of reality; and, separately, it
also still allows consideration that every
perceived point should act as a
dimensional crossroads.
Dimension may be lines of perspective,
where dynamics of space may simply bring
states of equilibrium; dimension, being
then illusionary.
Point ZERO provides an inferred outside
potential (ala envelope theory) - which is
also improbable for a truly big picture.
Regardless, our holding the notion of zero
is no more problematic than any of the
abstracts or math contrivances - all being
false.
Human beings, unfortunately, become
confused with perspective - their
seemingly insurmountable addiction. Nature
is not human thought, is forever outside
human thought.
Traps can be avoided by allowing oneself
the freedom to set aside comfortable
methodology. |
|
Write
article portraying “energy” as an abstract
or solely fictional perspective |
|
On human
time: apply the math-notion of “zero”
being non-existent (no such number) and
numbers attached to a constant (c).
Metaphorically, numbers recede from human
consciousness to the far-flung “constant”
.
Therefore: Ratios to/or from the speed of
light allows us to place ourselves in
respect of the speed of light. We are on
the earth, spinning about the sun,
spinning about the galaxies, etc. where we
then find a common seat with respect of
the speed of light. As there is no “zero”
number in this system, our calculated
position defines the exact number or field
floor where the orientation can then
become established. |
|
Light to
matter. Check full range of radiation and
potentials for encoding/decoding entities.
|
|
Present
math can be largely retained whole
establishing positive and negative spatial
“Rails”; - which are infinities and
possibly then useful as true constants.
On your play-field, there is no ground
under your feet. Am endless universe
extends in all directions of both the
infinitely small and infinitely large -
and both are the qualitatively the same. |
|
All
anti-nodes are in tension from the full
spectrum of nodal harmonics.
That is: Full spectrum harmonics pull from
single nodes, their prime ratios are
defined by the distribution of nodes.
|
|
Since spatiality is as much
inverse to obverse, a sum of the squares
of half-life of all the elements
(themselves simply knotted spacial
entities), should provide a view of the
origins and end of the time envelope.
|
|
Adapt for
a study, my old time-travel device for
space-travel through negative space. |
|
If space
goes out, never-ending, it goes “in”
never-ending. Therefore all aspects are
entirely perspective of human minds.
Therefore, every object has dynamic
dimensional direction from and to every
point providing observation.
This may reveal why light seemingly must
expand from every point for observable
reflection.
|
|
note to
Tom:
No - I have begun to see that my idea that
space becomes inverse below the point that
we have normally imagined to be a point of
zero is, of course just a matter of
perspective and that as space would appear
to ‘go out’ - to expand away from us
infinitely; it would also appear -from my
work- to go in - past that point of
zero-space (the place where present
physics, string theory, etc keeps trying
to stitch into some underlying base
theory), infinitely.
As you know, my thoughts have been that
‘particles’ are wholly mini storms of
differentiated space and that to look at
particles and atoms is to look, from our
perspective, at what is seen to be held or
pushed at us from the rest of its aspects
from inverse space or, if you will, from
their inverse entities (but which are not
divorced from inverse space. That is: made
up of the inverse of those entities).
However, if space goes ‘out’ forever and
‘in’ forever and things are only half seen
by us, we are in a kind of elevator shaft
with infinitely less space descending away
from us in all directions. Then of course,
what we have been considering ‘the
universe’ is extremely partial and
appreciations derived only from
perspective.
This might mean that, as we (atoms,
galaxies) are products of differentiating
space, everything we know of and our
perspective of it, every aspect of it,
down to every little point, each of which
would act like a cross-roads between
dimensions (which stretch away from each
point infinitely).
I thought it might be comparable from our
perspective to the way light appears. If
you look at something, you see a little
point of one side of the object, from
where ever your eye is in the room. Light
must be leaving every point of all objects
that we look at, into all directions -
from every point on the surface.
So when I started to think about from
where that light might be coming,
considering the total dimensionality in
which these objects are sitting and how
light and radiation may be generated and
transmitted, it was kind of nifty.
If space recedes down past points of zero,
in all directions fr0m all points, it
confines our perceptions to perspective
which creates for us the illusion of a
viable spacial reality. There may be no
“space” as we have thought of it at all
but for our illusion.
|
|
We can
see spacial storms at the level of
particles - so we are made of and a
product of spacial storms.
What is the reality of this stuff? Perhaps
atoms, planets, etc show the direction of
dimensionality, that it is dimensionality
that is curved and in a fight in the
massive objects we see.
|
|
examine
what happens within substances when
exposed to radiation / light; - what
happens to reflected light and to absorbed
light - in the substances themselves.
|
|
A
coordinate system must sit against
relative gravity and a perpendicularity of
G as a function of trajectory. -This
places curvature of space along travel/or
time. c anchors rate of acceleration.
|
|
|