[Fredrick]

Thank you, Nobody, for a whole lot of information.

I like the Romance languages quite a lot, but looking at some Germanic languages and see what they have to say about the universe is quite revealing. In German, the universe is know as 'All,' and you can see why I don't have to translate that word into anything else to make it understandable for us already. In opposition to 'It' this word is much better at describing what the universe is. And while 'all' in English is plural, 'All' in German is singular. In Dutch, it becomes even more interesting since they say 'heelal,' literally translated as 'whole-all.' As you can imagine, it is easy to say that duality is expressed within this singular word about everything. The word 'Raum' (from German) and 'rymd' (from Swedish) are not that outspokenly clear, as they are the same as the Germanic-English word 'room,' which can nevertheless still be translated into the Romance-English word 'space.'

I do not believe singularity exists on this side of matter (and I have great doubts we can state that the other side is singular either, for we (and the universe) are disconnected from that side, hence not forming a unit when viewed together either — though the other side may try to come across as singular). As you can understand, I prefer to not state too much about the other side, because only half-vague generalizations apply, not specifications.

I have anticipated the moment when scientisits were coming back from their singular view on the Black Hole Theory, and are now turning this theory more into a Gray Hole Theory (though most hold on to it being singular), with some matter not disappearing, but being spewed out by the two vents. Not to be funny (okay, a little bit), but since ash is coming out of these holes, it may be better to call them 'Ash-holes.'

I heard about Lynds a few weeks ago, and tried to contact him (and his team) to find out if they were interested in my mathematical information, but I never heard back from them. For me, the question whether the universe is cyclical or just a one-time-stretch (with an origin theory I call Empty Nest) is not that important. In both cases the origin is hidden in itself, and what we find is that the universe is result-based only (see Buddhism). To use the stick of the imagined origin again with only the bent-and-broken center having become materialized, time aspects are expressed within each piece of the broken stick. An example of this phenomenon is know to us quite well: babies are born and old people die at the same moment, young and old people live their lives, showing that each person is on his or her own track from their past to their future. Even cultures appear to be running on tracks, with some still in the stone age (and who may even desire to stay there) and others in what may be described as the 23rd century, far ahead of me. Time is a personal-and-group experience. To subsequently say that time is linear negates the complexity of this framework; it should be seen as going in all directions (though individually still going from past to future, but collectively going in all directions), and it is at the crossings of each others' lines that we can view the past of 'ourselves' and the future of 'ourselves' — no matter where in time we are — but only if the conditions are right. All in all, it is a precarious subject matter, since each of us must follow our own past towards future track, and glimpses of either, beyond our own momentum, cannot be other than a bit confusing/distracting.

While I tend to still say 'him' too, Infinite Consciousness, when refering to god, I am aware it is a misnomer. Old habits are hard to break, but important if we want to get it right. Even 'her' or 'it' is a misnomer, for only one word (plus an additional one) applies here, the word: god — godself. Assigning gender to god is proclaiming knowledge about god, something we cannot know with certainty, and what is a falsification if we tried. Only by using the word correctly can the message be communicated properly. Equalwise, to proclaim god as a singularity is again overstepping our knowledge, and what is a claim on the very being of god that cannot be confirmed. I would still state that god is, and not god are, but would do that on the grounds that any abstraction is most often written in the singular form. If we imagine god to equal a group than it is easy to see how that would still receive a singular is-form. It would then read as: the group is the encompassing entity of the highest level of consciousness. However, proclaining god to be a group would also cross the same line, for that knowledge cannot be known. Still, by using the word properly, we can at least stop confusing each other with words like 'him,' 'her,' 'it,' or 'they.'

Again, the pyramid may help out, since only the bottom corners are actual representations of reality, and individually each is, while collectively they are. In top we find the collective state again, but this time melded into a 'one,' which then receives a singular verbage of is. May the force be with you is considered a single thing, but now you know it isn't. 'The force' are four/five forces combined as a single group — and don't try to steer all wheels in a different direction at the same time because it won't work.

Since I believe that the calculations about gravity are off (for gravity is not placed in the right context by current physicists), I need to refrain myself from stating that dark matter and energy are shown to exist through calculations of gravity in our universe. Yet, I would not be surprised that once the calculations are done right, that we still need to use these terms to describe our universe correctly. But who knows. Rather than needing the dark energy and dark matter to be in an equilibrium, we need to be foremost in an 'advantaged' position to remain materialized.