Time Tubes and Cones

[Fredrick]

(Am I a loonie or what?)

You are no loonie, JAK. Even though I would not be surprised if someone was able to manufacture a monopole, it would be something quite out of the ordinary. Though Hawking mentioned the theory of everything would be something "like North of the Northpole," he used this example as giving words to the option (for he wasn't sure) that a toe is an impossibility (in a singular sense). Possibly, the words were taken for real, and some one tried to find an actual monopole to fit the words. Either way, if it could exist or not, a monopole would not be a normal state.

(In other words, the time cone/mass cone (whatever you want to call it) is conical in 2 directions which causes the stretching and the ensuing attraction between opposite and corresponding magnetic lines of force (north to south). In other words, any object with mass creates a bulge in the aether in 2 directions - "north" and "south". And magnetic lines of force are actually "threads" of gluons/gravitons, the fabric of the aether, being stretched.

In an experiment, if you have a bucket of water, add some small particles to it that are contained within the water but not absorbed by it, and spin the water in the bucket, then let the spin die down by itself. If the circumstances are right, all particles end up in a heep in the middle. The lack of movement in the middle when the spin is not as strong anymore put them all right next to each other, clumped, and no gravitational force was required (except of the earth to have the particles float to the bottom). The outer parts of the water still spin somewhat, but are 'emptied out' from all particles. The lack of spin, of movement, is vital in understanding how matter huddles together. By the time the water is no longer spinning, nothing will change the alignment, except when additionally stirring the water. The slowing down process of movement creates holes that aren't holes in which matter collects.

It is important to see that our universe is a state of active balancing, and the no-longer-spinning water in the bucket is not the full example. It is a continuing process, mono-directional (away from the Big Bang) and it contains a lot of locations in which spin is absent in specific relative ways. Our solar system is one of the spots in which matter was attracted to the relative absence of spin (and earth within that complex set of spins) (and the solar system within that larger even more complex set of absences of spin). Naturally, objects themselves stir up the 'water' in that single direction in which the absence of spin is found towards the other objects due to the spin still being there in the other directions. We are moving away from the BB beginning, so we cannot declare our universe to be without movement, but there are relative positions in which movement was/became absent.

The objects are the bearers of the non-movement, with nowhere else to go than to follow the general movement that still pulls and pushes on them.

[Fredrick]

Hi Tim and JAK,

I will post here what I posted at An Idea and The Dance of Shiva as well:

I have another comment to make, kind of wrapping up the conceptual information I provided earlier. As you know I am using ordinary concepts to describe the underlying concepts of our physical universe. The good part about that approach is that we can look at the information without having preconceptions that can easily lead us astray. If I were to write something about gravity, you may have a different idea about what gravity is in your mind than I, and it may be a really long conversation before we would find out. So, using different concepts, such as 'family' and 'family members,' that can still be used to show the underlying relationships of everything is quite helpful.

The not so good part is that using other concepts are always translations. As such they are not the actual parts/behaviors we are talking about, but only similar parts/behaviors. Still, and I believe this is possibly most important, any words and any data we use are translations of the actual universe. So while using other examples removes us once from the subject matter, our language already contains that same removal (of once) as well; and that doesn't mean a compounding of the issue, because it is the same action that just requires an alert mind.

Having said that, here is a further completion of the family concept.

Having just one concept of family (father, mother, daughter, son) does not capture the physical reality fully. We need at least a second set of family right next to the first set to capture the dynamics of our universe. Just like the word We can describe every human being on this planet, this does not immediately show the conflicts we are seemingly in all the time, as if just one concept of We is all peace and love. So, we need to move one level down to where there are at least two concepts of We. These two concepts are not in agreement with each other, even when both follow the same conceptual information. The reasons for both We's to be in disagreement can be something as silly as language, looks, and manners.

The overall concept of everything is a pyramid, but the pyramid only captures the basic set of relationships. Adding other pyramids, in any which location in relationship to the first, is a requirement to get to the whole picture. I hope you understand that 10 million pyramids, all in positions that are slightly different, would together create a globe of positions. And a globe, of course, can conceptually be viewed as a pyramid.

[JAK]

... I hope you understand that 10 million pyramids, all in positions that are slightly different, would together create a globe of positions. ...

And 1 pyramid rotating randomly and at the speed of light into 10 million positions around a single focal point would appear to be a globe.

The challenge is how to relate the pyramid model to the standard model. What does the pyramid model offer which better satisfies (or more simply satisfies) experimental evidence than the current standard model? What does the pyramid model answer that the standard model does not or can not explain?

[Fredrick]

And 1 pyramid rotating randomly and at the speed of light into 10 million positions around a single focal point would appear to be a globe.

The challenge is how to relate the pyramid model to the standard model. What does the pyramid model offer which better satisfies (or more simply satisfies) experimental evidence than the current standard model? What does the pyramid model answer that the standard model does not or can not explain?

The biggest plus I can think of right now, JAK, is that the pyramid is a pure concept, while the current standard model is a collection of data and concepts. A pyramid does not exist in nature, it is pure a delivery derived from oppositional positions (three in total, though only two oppositions are all that's required to get to the third one of whole in opposition to parts).

So, while I really like your 1 pyramid rotating randomly at the speed of light into ten million pyramids, and while it is conceptually correct, this does not jibe with reality. A single pyramid would not be in conflict with itself, no matter how fast it moves in random positions. We know of our universe that conflict is part and parcel of the outcome. That means the ultimate concept desires multitudes of conflicting parts. If the globe were our earth then we can possibly see the outcome of the conflicting parts in phenomena like the internal magnetic field, the spin of our earth, and others.

Though matter may all come from the same potential universe, matter itself is not singularly the same. There is no zen particle (except as the potential particle from which the quarks etcetera derived).

Here's a different way to look at the two models: the standard model contains the belief that our universe is ultimately based on a unified principle. The pyramid shows that the stage of the unified principle exists with the potential universe, and not with the materialized universe. And that little distinction is important, because matter attempts to unify, an important driving force/position for matter. It's just that matter tries to unify (i.e. restore previous position of potential state) in conflicting ways, and these conflicting ways cannot be overcome. And that is good news for us, because we would otherwise not be here.

[JAK]

... Here's a different way to look at the two models: the standard model contains the belief that our universe is ultimately based on a unified principle. The pyramid shows that the stage of the unified principle exists with the potential universe, and not with the materialized universe. And that little distinction is important, because matter attempts to unify, an important driving force/position for matter. It's just that matter tries to unify (i.e. restore previous position of potential state) in conflicting ways, and these conflicting ways cannot be overcome. And that is good news for us, because we would otherwise not be here. ...

Okay, let's extricate the pyramid from matter. What if the pyramid was really the conjunction/intersection of lines of force within the aether? With the time/mass cones, the cone could fit within a pyramid of aether outlined by aether grid lines - a minimum of 4 grid lines to an intersection/conjunction, thus, forming a pyramid. The bottom of the pyramid would be the normal level of the aether. As matter distorts the aether into an upside down pyramid shape with a single grid intersection as the apex, matter swirls within the confines of the aethereal pit creating the appearance of circular features and the "curvature of space".

Possibility?

[Fredrick]

Okay, let's extricate the pyramid from matter. What if the pyramid was really the conjunction/intersection of lines of force within the aether? With the time/mass cones, the cone could fit within a pyramid of aether outlined by aether grid lines - a minimum of 4 grid lines to an intersection/conjunction, thus, forming a pyramid. The bottom of the pyramid would be the normal level of the aether. As matter distorts the aether into an upside down pyramid shape with a single grid intersection as the apex, matter swirls within the confines of the aethereal pit creating the appearance of circular features and the "curvature of space".

Possibility?

No problem, JAK, if you want to go for the model with an ether then you have what it takes.

I claim that it doesn't matter, with or without ether. Yet the delivery changes in use of words and concepts.

If you do it without the ether, the cone you are referring to is the cone of gravity, existing inside the pyramid. As you know the cone symbolizes the spatial options associated with gravity (circle, ellipse, parabola and hyperbola).

It is possible to also use ether, but then I would place the ether at the top of the pyramid, as the apex of all forces into one. This is a possible condition, yet it would not be a condition that is valid at all times and all places.

Do you care to elaborate how the universe could not exist without ether?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Fredrick,

Can you digest matter, and have Ether, too, or doesn't it matter, either or, ether way?

Seriously, do you think that mathematics underlies the universe, and, if so, does the '0' proof then mean more for sure that there is separation (vs. unity) of the fundamental(s)?

[JAK]

... Do you care to elaborate how the universe could not exist without ether? ...

The fundamental question is whether matter lugs all of these natural laws around on its back as it trudges across the universe. Or is matter immersed in an ocean of universal and omnipresent natural laws. If it is the latter, then an aether becomes attractive.

Additionally, it is Felix's opinion that physics has been rather stagnant for the last half century. If this is true, then it may be that the current model is wrong and futile in at least some regard.

I am intuitively attracted to Einstein's "curvature of space" idea. So is Felix. And he leans toward an aether, too. Felix's Casimir effect and its "springiness" further suggests an aether. With you and PoPpAScience purporting structures with apexes - vortices and pyramids, it provides a shape for any "dent in space/time".

Tie all of this with the fact that magnetism shows actual lines of force, then the question immediately is: Are these lines the result of the matter? If so, why do they bow outward into the vacuum of space? How does matter have any affect at a distance in a true void? Why are there lines in magnetism when a material object has no such striations? Why should these striations be in alignment when a chaotic object is at its center?

Or are these "stretch marks" in the aether? Are these lines the fabric of the aether being stretched? Are the striations part of the fabric? If so, no matter what the shape, condition, or size of the object stretching it, the fabric lines reveal themselves in a consistent manner.

If 'time/mass cones" withstands some hard scrutiny, as a tantalizing benefit, it offers to collapse 3 laws - gravity, the weak force, and the strong force - into a single law which relates to a gradient, a scalar function. This would be a broad stroke of simplification from the current model which, again, seems to have painted itself into a corner.

Time/mass cones is a new path which unifies much. Intuitively, I like the aether and Einstein's curvature of space.

[Fredrick]

Good questions, deliveries and observations, guys,

I hope you don't mind my answering the questions foremost by using different examples.

We can argue long and short about the absence or presence of family in our reality. Family is an abstract concept that exists, but that does not exists as an actual entity. Still, it is easy to create our human history in light of just family. Some information would not be provided, but in general the whole history can get sketched. Similarly, we can write our entire human history without ever mentioning the concept of family. Some aspects would not be included, yet the overal delivery would to a large degree be the same as the first delivery.

How important is family in the overall story? My answer is that the place family takes in in the overall story is of a lesser value than the fact that we can write that story in two ways: with and without mentioning family. In general, we have no problem using both aspects of family and non-family in a single delivery. Yet in science, there is somehow a problem doing it both ways. According to me, that means the basics of science may be set up to make us fail at the overall level; science is set up to find specific information only. The way out of this is to understand what the specific limitation is that science puts before us.

A quick answer to your specific question, Austin, about mathematics: yes. Except math needs to be seen as the king of abstracts. Most important is the fact that in daily life we can think of a whole picture of everything and consider it complete and singular. In math, that option is not available. For the forces, separation is the first (and larger) step, trying to re-unify is the second step and occurs in various conflicting ways.

JAK, I follow your reasoning quite well, and I do not see any problem in your logic. However, the fact that "magnetism shows actual lines of force" should provide you information about magnetism. If you use that information to say something about the rest, you take a freedom that is indeed there, but then your answer/conclusion must mention that freedom as well. I may conclude something about your family based on knowing just you, but I am aware that that is extrapolation, and I can never be certain about my conclusions.

So, I think it is safer to just use the information you provide naturally about yourself to build my image I have about you. If magnetism shows striations, I would conclude magnetism itself is (or has been) torn between forces and even though magnetism 'is delivering itself' in a single particular way (that of being magnetic), it shows the torned experience. In the pyramid the magnetic force is the sibling of the electric force, based on the same set of parents. This force, that was unified by scientists a long time ago, is either one or the other. I would call that a competing ground between possible outcomes. Magnetism shows an outcome that reveals its stressful origin. Does the electric force also show stress? Or would you agree with me that to some extent electricity = stress?