[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

There's never a need to thank me. We all help each other in various ways to various degrees whether we intend to or not. Like that wiseman, or fool, who once said you can learn what to do from a wiseman or what not to do from a fool, the result is the same. The bottom line being it is each of us who determines who the wisemen and fools are.

With regards to the languages, I think there are commonalities in all of them, especially when we use them contextually to explain ourselves. As long as we elaborate enough when defining terms, everyone should be able to get the gist of our scenarios. It is said that people understand better pictorially, so I like the idea of using analogies. Which brings us to yours and Lynds'.

As far as I can tell, I like yours better because it leaves more room for the mechanics I have in mind to work. His balloon analogy reaching a breaking point where heat wouldn't escape doesn't ring true for me, because the boundaries ofthe balloon itself must be based on interior heat for it to expand - it is sort of like taking the analogous boundary of a balloon as a literal balloon that would pop, when the boundary represent radiation that should continue to expand. In other words, if there is no allowance for further expansion into "nothingness," then there would be no initial expansion possible, and for this reason the analogy fails to explain the mechanics properly. Plus a few more instances of improper mechanics which you touched upon that make it ill-conceived, imo.

Yours on the other hand, doesn't seem to imply the existence of a singularity (which according to Lynds, exists but is never reached because of its inverted gravitational force). If I'm not mistaken, it seems to imply that if the forces of one universe were reciprocated that another universe would exist identical to this one, with its own forward time from past to future. Eventhough only one is observable.

I had mentioned to Lloyd that dark matter and energy should be linked to other universes, and that all forces should be considered electromagnetic - including gravity - though range is all-important because the bulk strength is required to bind particles. Where most scientists, understandably, focused more on macroscopic effects, the cause of the effects are logically the result of cumulative microscopic effects - the microscopic ingredients of the macroscopic cake. If the universe has evidence of a fractal nature, which I think it does, the functioning has to remain throughout the super-galactic to the sub-quantum.

Yet, eventhough the function remains the same infinitely, when we consider spacetime incrementally instead of macroscopically, every conceivable point in spacetime is the point where forces invert to allow for an infinite number of universes. This would be the "heelal" that would represent both "negative" and "positive" infinity, and the math then becomes very simple, to the tune of 1-1=0. So the empirical and theoretical when extended equates the 1 to the 0, by way of the 1 representing both positive and negative 1 simultaneously. That is the only way I would concede to the existence of an absolute one, as long as others are to concede to the one being simultaneously negated to none. That without a break in symmetry, motion is impossible.

Three hours later...just one more thing. You had said that the pyramid at the top represents unification of forces, whereas the bottom represents the reality of separate forces, but at the top I remember you saying something about carrying the shape of the pyramid throughout all levels. My question is, at the extreme north does the pyramidal shape remain? If not, what shape would that supreme pole have?