[Jamesh]

Why Do Constants Exist

Concerning Hawkins and his self-discounted theory that black holes cause a loss of information.

I am starting to think that information is lost between different levels of universal constants. Just lately I have come to the conclusion that each change in a universal size constant, ie string-quark-atom-thing-universe is actually a *different* universe. By a universal constant I am referring to the maximum size that a thing can be - there are no 1 sq metre atoms for instance.

When an atom is split information is gained because the number of relationships the parts of a thing has to the rest of the universe is increased, but when something is drawn into a black hole, that is a dominantly contractive action, and many become one, information is lost, in the sense of it being transferred from one universe to another as per Hawkins, as the number of relativities is decreased in the universe that we are capable of observing.

E=MC2 Energy equates to force, which when mass is converted to energy, equates to the total potential of movement at the speed of light within a 3 dimensional spatial area. Mass equals gravitational pull. Mass equals a greater degree of the contractual force within a spatial domain. Things with an atomic structure, are in fact things at a different universal constant than lower level energy waves.

In physics information is never destroyed. If the universe was to lose information this would break the concept of “everything is caused and interconnected” or everything has an equal and opposite reaction. IF Hawkins maths do correctly show that black holes destroy information, then the information is not lost but transferred into a different universal domain – universal size constants are different universes – these different universes have different time scales.

Within the totality there is also probably an infinity of these flowing equalities, not just one. If there are multiple universes they would be the ultimate centre of gravity of each universe. Importantly though the centre of every individually-appearing thing would also consist of a less perfectly equal version of this "instant" within the boundary, less perfectly equal because of it being relative to everything else as a result of there now being more "existence". Within the realm of infinite space, the markedly different size of the an atom and a universe is of no importance, it is simply not relevant - to think of absolute infinity try to set no boundaries. This however does not preclude their being non-absolute forms of infinity, infinity caused by something, but through the act of being caused then certain limitations are also formed.

These points of zero activity are of vital importance as it is what allows for the existence of constants. In a sense, though not literally, the Expansionary force is a kind of space creating agent and the Contracting force is a space devouring agent - they only have this capability if both exist.

Because the full boundary between the two forces is mostly "not-equal" this causes things to swirl around a centre (well except if there really was a first cause which non-duality almost presupposes). Things such as galaxies or atoms consist of outer parts, where relative to the central parts, the expansionary force is dominant and thus creates a larger spatial area. The contracting force contracts space formed by the expansionary force, so the centre is spatially smaller, but contains more gravity, or mass or contracting force, than do spatial areas where the expansionary force is dominant.

Imagine the galaxy is the only one and it only consisted of one type of element - say hydrogen and was perfectly circular and had perfectly equal gas density throughout. What would occur? Well it would still have gravitational centre. To be a circle there would be need to be an infinitesimally small occurrence of complete balance in the centre. For convenience sake lets imagine this central point as an string within a quark within an atom. We are calling this point a thing so it is a level above that of the boundary between the two opposite forces. It is a thing because it surrounded in all directions by instances of the boundary. The purpose of this exercise is to work out how the infinite boundary between the two forces could be "separated" so as to allow the formation of things, and how things obtain multiple properties that are different from one spatial area and another. In scientific terms it would be "What causes Constants". Without constants groupings of like could not occur and thus there would be no things. One sees these breaks in the consistency of changes in form in light and other electromagnetic forms (Red shift, Doppler effect), as well as limitations such as an atom or star can only be so big before it breaks apart.

Constants must be structural breaks in the infinity of the boundary, but in the context of infinity there can be no such breaks. So how could this occur?

The boundary must be limited, as well as being infinite. If it were not limited, then how could anything move, nothing would have any lee-way, any give. There would always be an exact 50/50 ratio of balance between the two forces - remember they are infinite so they cannot be altered, they cannot truly permanently mix together to form a single "one", nor can their power be depleted. They can "mix" to form things but they will always remain divisible down to what they truly are. Their power does not decrease, though spatial form can give the appearance of the forces being lessened. The total amount of power in any one spatial territory can be observed to be different (ie as in say empty space, air or a diamond), but the problem with this is that such observations all come from a finite perspective, our perspectives are think in terms of a certain set of spatial sizes that are most relevant to our total size. Our observation is always from outside, even why trying to imagine the size of the solar system we place ourselves outside of it - it is the only way to make it into a thing.

The boundary would always be the sum of two parts/causes, it would be a single thing, a one.

The business previously mentioned, about the smaller a thing is, then the potentially greater expansionary force that will be released is rather interesting. This because the smaller a thing is, if it is a thing that is a different level within the range of constants within the universe, then the more tension it is applying to the surrounding/overlaying expansionary force, the more contractive it is. The strength of its self-bounded-ness in relation to any change in form, including shape, depends on the strength of its own contractiveness.

It (what it) also shows us that the boundary between the two forces can be broken, however this does not mean that the two forces are ever really divided. They are the real two underlying dimensions of reality, and they are of a lower level than the 4 commonly referred to dimensions that are used to describe reality. You cannot logically create 4 from 1, but you can create 4 from two different 1's, namely +1 and -1. The 4 sets or things are "+1", "-1", "+1,-1" and "-1,+1". The 4th set is not the same as the 3rd. As the four dimensions are really just appearances, and appearances are knowable through perspective, then the 3rd and the 4th sets are really the equivalent of the 3 standard dimensions of up/down, left/right, and forward/backward working as one dimension – turn your perception around and one becomes the other. If the power of E1 and C1 is infinity, as it is, but the forces of each one can be altered in intensity by the other, then the sets would also include the infinite arrays of differing percentages of power in the ranges “<E1 >+E0.5” and “<C1 > C0.5”.

These forces have a maximum level of force potential because they are bounded by each other. We can see however that the force potential is very great. The whole big bang theory and the observed universe all moving apart or outward is a sign the full potential is more or less unlimited, particularly seeing as we are observing these forces in action from a perspective that comes from within a heavily bounded section (from within a galaxy) in the universe. We have no way of knowing whether our observed universe is merely part of an atom in an even larger universe. A size constant could and would exist at the size of a whole universe and so on ad infinitum. If one were a god wouldn’t it make sense to make small the same as large.

Nothing can exist without a boundary – actually nothing can exist without at least two boundaries. The universe we observe is finite – it is bounded in all dimensions by the universal constants.

As something more fundamental than the known dimensions exists, then at some stage their must be something that, as a cause, is non-divisible by external causes – all the dimensions we are aware of are divisible – they are not true reflections of infinity.

The forces have a secondary limitation, they are not infinite in the sense that they can be more than what they are. Even without any interaction between the two, and where the forces are in their infinite state, the two forces can never have say 350% force action – at least that is not within a domain that works at the level above that of atoms. If forces are released from a lower domain, they will form other constants, and these constants will cause them to form into atomic structures.

How is Space Caused

I picture travelling through space as moving infinitely into contraction and while doing so moving infinitely outwards, the end result being that everything remains the same. Only because space is so perfect, so lacking in properties, can this occur. One needs to ignore the things that are contained in space, because really they are always resting on top of space.

As the occupation of the two forces within a non-spatial totality as no boundary, other than each other, space also has no other boundary, except perhaps time and matter. When a dualistic infinity exists then a property will be created, that property is space. We can use all the possible dimensions of this universe, except for two, we cannot add or subtract form the totality of matter. The universe is knowable as an effect, through matter. As an effect this means it is caused by some form of action that is opposite to what exists. That which caused it must be able to add to and subtract from the totality of matter.


Even though space is created by the action of the two forces this would leave a universe with nothing in it. The trick is that the two forces are still expanding and contracting and they are now doing so relative to space, space is no longer simply an effect it now becomes a cause. There are no final causes where the cause and effect process stops, the process of the universe never stops so space, together with the expansion and contraction forces must be a cause of other effects. Expansion and contraction forces are the content and cause of every other cause, apart from themselves.

Space becomes overlayed by the continuation of the combined creative process. If it didn't then there would be no flow-on cause and cause and effect would fall apart, as it would mean a fundamental effect would not also be a cause. It would disprove cause and effect.

How is Time Caused

Time is the ratio between the Expansion and contraction forces. If you think about it, time cannot be otherwise. A year is a year because of some defined set of movements. If that is so then any amount of time is related to movement. So while things are capable of change, and do not change instantly, it takes time to change, then therefore time must exist - time cannot be something separate to the universe. There is no reason to make time an exception to the cause and effect rule.

Time must be caused, and it must be caused by the forces behind movement, namely expansion and contraction. Expansion and contraction viewed as a single thing, as a whole, IS simply another name for movement.

Universal constants are finite time scales, within the infinity.
Scientists often say there is something instantaneous property required for the existence of certain effects such as gravity, and the structure of the universe generally.

For cause and effect to be a flowing process then there can be no gaps either in time or in thingness, there cannot be any spatial areas that are truly empty of everything. Time and the properties of things might be different but there can be no separation, no dimensions of nothingness. An underlying instantaneousness must hold this non-separation in place. Gravity is the best example of instantaneous reaction in all directions.

You couldn't have slowing or speeding of time that would show any predictability without it being dependant on something which was never slowed down or speed up - our time would have to always be relative to some unchanging absolute timeframe, and theses absolutes must have two forms that are opposite. One of the poles would have a form akin to staticness and the other instantaneousness, and in the middle the balance between the two, the ever present present. Things move because the present is always a fleeting moment, while relativities cause things with properties to flow through to either pole, at which point they will have become so property-less as to appear to cease to exist, when in fact they are just segregating towards their pure states as infinitely unequal opposite forces.

How are Things Caused

Everything that is near perfectly formed like an atom or planet or sun is so because of some lack of relativity with other similarly strong gravitational objects. Overtime the more relative space between like objects the more circular will be its form. For instance the components of an atom are likely to be relative because of the huge spaces relatively speaking between each component.

Groups of such orbs create gaps, when (near) perfectly balanced create a gap in the centre, and it is equal and opposite gravitational pulls that allow such a formation. The set of perfectly balanced orbs become units, which then go on to form other larger sets of balances in the same fashion. The difference though is that the larger sets are less perfectly formed as there will be larger gaps around the outside allowing for more opportunities for other things to break apart the balanced structures. Over time these sets will form a nucleus in the centre of the structure. The nucleus is formed by smaller particles being ejected from the semi-balanced sets from within the structure itself and from external intrusions. Once this nucleus gets large enough by forming like sets, it will begin to weaken the balances that keep the whole structure together. It can even cause a structure to explode. This explosion can occur at any physical level, including our universe, but not the totality.

When the black hole at the centre of our universe (which current science knowledge is pointing to) gets large enough our universe will explode and become part of a universe that is even larger, just as matter contained within an atom becomes part of our universe, eg light from the atomic explosions in the sun for instance. Until it explodes or destructs the matter is contained wholly within the atom. No thing of matter is different to anything else in terms of its basic structural formation and destruction process. There are no truly separated universes, only separate dimensions, caused by layered universes, all formed from the same process.

The only way to see into an atom, it being a lower level universe push something into it and see what ejects, which may destroy the atom, depending on its structure.

If expansion and contraction exist now, as it does, we can see it in things, then it has always existed. Apart from space and time you cannot say the same for any thing or force, at least considering that many scientists are suggesting that different universe may have different sets of constants (they do of course but not in the lateral universe way that I think most imagine, but in the layered way that I am suggesting).

A TOE formula should be able to be produced simply be reference to the relationship between constants.
Having only one property these two forces are each 1 dimensional. Space is 1 dimensional - without anything in it then how would it appear, it would appear as nothingness. True nothingness, where even space is absent, would also be one dimensional. The two are opposites and if A exists then Not-A must also exist.

Within the non-spatial totality there can be no separation of that which is fundamental, but nor can they change from what they are, however they can still change what they are not.

If matter comes from space itself then Hydrogen may be the only elemental atom formed by the least relativity to other matter as the lower formation levels formed (of which there may be an infinity), which would create the simplest and most common atom. It requires that the most balanced manner in which quarks should form are not broken apart or made into a different structure due to the pull of close by matter of any sort. Where a number of the simplest atoms, Hydrogen, break apart in close proximity then different elements can be formed, as some of the pieces (sets of lower level patterns) of the broken atoms are likely to retain some balanced form, which then allows for new formations or types of atom to occur.

What are Heat and Light

Perhaps the forces are the same thing. Lets say the contracts until it reaches a point where it can contract no more (why/how?), at which point it reverse and becomes the expansionary force. This would explain why things have gravity, and would also explain why mass emits light, as light would be the expansionary force not long after the reversal from contracting to expansion. Light does appear to be a thing with a higher content of expansionary force – it is the great destructor of things in the universe – over time it breaks apart things larger than atoms, it breaks apart patterns of chemical bonding, and the more light the faster such things are broken apart (lasers, colours fading in the sun and so on). In breaking part chemical structures it causes the totality of that structure to encompass a larger area – the structure expands in parts and molecules are pushed out of the object, and into others such as the air, by this expansion, more so when combined with oxygen. Heat coming from the chemical reactions that light causes would be a release of the expansionary force. Heat causes feelings in us because it destroys patterns of existence that have evolved to hold together for a longer period within a lower range of temperatures than that provided by direct sunlight or other sources of heat. Cold however is not the contracting force – to a point at least. Cold is generally the absence of the release of the expanding force. Absolute zero however is a different matter, as that is the point in which the contracting force becomes dominant, where it exceeds the power of the expansionary force in that spatial area. Absolute zero is the point in which the expansionary force is drawn out from an object into the spatial area once occupied by the contracting force as it gets smaller and smaller. On any one dimensional plane, the contracting force is increasing the size of the expansionary force and the combined Expansion/contraction offshoot “space”, at an ever decreasing rate – in relative terms only. Relative to the expansionary force the contracting force gets smaller, but to itself or within itself it always stays the same. The expansionary force cannot do anything without this occurring.

Yet again though we need the Contracting force to be divisible. This is a real sticking point in relation to this theory and points to a fundamental error in logic somewhere along the line. I imagine that at the very centre of each atom there exists a force that is making space appear smaller, something that twists space so as to bring objects into it, something that creates the effect of gravity - when in reality it is expanding only because something else is contracting into itself and “pulling” everything else that surrounds it into it.

All material things emit can light to some degree, otherwise they could not be observable. If light is a thing this would mean that light itself emits light but the emitted light is of another form, something else lower down on the complexity chart, other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Also if things emit light then all of its content must be moving at the speed of light, except that content that is perfectly balanced to form a static presence, notwithstanding that they are only balanced because of they are constantly reforming balances inside the balance, perhaps at the speed of light.

If something that was moving at the speed of light was inside of something that wasn't then it would instantly break though causing an instant collapse/expansion of the thing. This means that light is contained within a shell that it does not penetrate until that shell is broken - that things do emit light shows us that such shells do get broken over time. The internal balances never remain perfectly balanced, though they might do so for longer where external relativities are less intrusive.

Perhaps light is one of the first particles of the universe. I f we only see light when it hits something, then space will appear dark. When Light hits something it ricochets off it, usually at a different angle. It is this different angle which cause light to become visible. Where the light comes straight at you then you would not see it, your eye would not have time to respond to something coming at you at the speed of light. When light reflects at an angle of any degree from something then it travels a longer path because of the angle. Colours are light at an angle. It is the zillions of light rays all coming off different parts of things at different angles that allows us to see a spectrum of light all taking slightly longer to travel a distance (a longer distance relative that is to the observer).

Light may also slow down, it is a thing with multiple properties (otherwise no light spectrum). In fact in order to reflect off something it has to slow down - otherwise it would go straight through the thing. Alternatively if it does not slow down and thus does not reflect, then it must have the power, using the newly released power of the thing that it is striking, to break holes in the shell that releases some of the expansionary force from its constraint inside the shell.

Any slowing in the speed of light would mean the instant creation of a new thing, something else in the domain of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The light that hits an object, including the atmosphere, must be different in some fashion than before it hit it, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see things. When we see light we are not seeing light but the effect of light on things. This means there is something faster than the speed of light. If there is something faster than the speed of light then there is something infinitely fast, something instantaneous.

What is Motion

Zeno's paradoxes exist because people do not understand the utter interconnectedness of all things. The only thing that still needs to be resolved is Why constants exist.

My definition of Matter is anything that gives an appearance, anything with multiple properties. So this definition includes all forms of matter including energy (light etc) - but does not actually include the ultimate content of such matter - the existence of such ultimate content can only be known through observing the action of matter as it relates to other matter.

Existence, or Space-Time-Matter-Movement, is one entity, of a sort. Well actually, it is two permanent infinite entities that create one permanent entity, The Totality, which in turn provides for multiple entities depending on what an observer is capable of observing. To be honest though they are not really entities but Effects – Space-Time-Matter are appearances, forms of illusionary static-ness within the universe, they not actually causes. The only things that can be fundamental causes are things that are not caused by other things, things whose entire nature is that of a cause and not of an effect. There must be two fundamental causes however, as a single cause would mean everything would be the same – you need duality to have things.

What motion really is, is changes in differing percentages of the “boundary” between the fundamental Expansionary force and the Contracting force. Such changes are caused by all things being relative to everything else. Movement is caused when one of the forces has less constraint upon the other force, and thus all things that we observe are in fact ALWAYS MOVING relative to something else or not. Within an object though there must be points that are not moving relative to the object itself, though not relative to other objects. The expansionary force is a kind of space creating force, the contracting force is the space condensing force. Because they are necessarily infinite, except in relation to each other, then there must form a boundary between the two where the casual action of the fundamental force is hampered by the opposing infinity. Only such forces could possibly be infinite – nothing else can - and for this reason I consider such forces as not being things.

Everything is relative to everything else because everything is interconnected with everything. Because of the flow on effect of equal and opposite reactions this interconnectedness does not have to be direct (namely within the near vicinity of a changing object or spatial area) - over enough time all movements directly affect everything else. Because everything is interconnected with everything else, this means that everything can be categorised as part of one thing.

It is because everything is directly interconnected that the percentages of the fundamental forces can vary within different spatial areas. Space could be considered as non-separate domains within the universe where the expansionary force is more dominantly active than the contracting force. Once something exists, as the meeting place or boundary between the two opposing forces will always exist, then relativity will also exist.

If the forces are infinite, then the boundary that is formed simply by the action of their very existence as opposites, then this boundary must also be infinite. If the boundary is infinite then this means it is infinitely variable – meaning that within a spatial area both 100% expansion and contraction forces are existent as poles together with all degrees in between, including an instance where there is a perfect force balance between the two forces - which creates the opportunity for the concept of “centre”.

Like a self-powered propeller driven by a perpetual motion machine, the infinitely variable percentages of positive/negative percentages of forces on either side of the perfect balance will cause curvature or twisting of that spatial area. This twisting is occurring at all times, it is not an initial or First Cause, but a permanent primary cause. As one spatial area is interconnected with another partial area the spectrum of force percentages are ALSO relative to other spatial areas, so therefore the curvature within one spatial area will affect the curvature in another. Movement is the flow of this casual effect throughout the universe.

This process is what allows for Form, which is a kind of overlapping or layering of space as an end result of this twisting. Although there is only one boundary between Expansion and Contraction - that boundary is infinite, and thus in a sense it is more than “one”. The infinity of differing percentages of force content from the perfect balance (we’ll call it a centre) exist in every direction from that balance point, so the curvature in reality is occurring non-linearly, ie it is not an linear arc but a non-linear funnel shape made up of an infinity of arcs (Cubed Twisties perhaps!), hence this provides for the three dimensions (and of course appearances such as tornadoes and gas jets often found on either side of newly forming galaxies, or energy bursts from neutron stars, or a whirlpool etc). Such a shape is the natural formation of things, and why the Fibonacci phenomena exists, but it appears rarely due to the form of all things constantly being altered by that which surrounds the things.

Alternative: I wonder if things move because the total net time set of the thing is caused to slow down. An arrow flies not across the air, but its time frame is slowed down by the intervention its molecules with those of air, while everything else, except what it interacts with, goes at its normal speed of time. As the time frame of the orbiting earth remains the same, but the arrows moves more slowly, then the arrow will move without ever actually changing its location, it will just change relative time location.

Any cause and effect process always creates at least two things, so when space is created so is time and only the combination of the two create observable space. If matter is then created from expansion, contraction, space and time then it too will have relative time as one of its properties. Relative-time would allow for different time frames or speeds and gravity would actually be sections of the universe where time had been made slower by something else interfering with it. I've heard it said that as one enters a black hole's event horizon then one's perception of the universe would remain the same, however to an observer outside of the black hole it would appear as if the person was being stretched around and around the black hole trailing off into a point. A change in time frame would produce this. It would also explain why no one has ever explained motion and why a fast travelling object appears to shrink in size. If time is going slower relatively for that object, then there is a mismatch between the speed of our vision and spread of the object. We would see less in a millisecond of our time, because our light would be faster than the objects. If we were travelling fast, say we are looking out a train window and seeing things close by blur, this would be because the air around the train is being caused to travel at a lot of different speeds, which makes the light coming from objects stretch out.