An Idea

[SB_UK]

The time-line (unidirectional no polarity) (which carries gravity) as the axis on the standing wave
- the imaginary feed into generating the real (spatial dimensions) of the butterfly wings (polarity) (the EM field).

/com|plex\ as a composite of {imaginary seeds real}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity ... ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

In this model, each sense functions as a lens, refocusing wave patterns either by perceiving a specific pattern or context as swirls, or by discerning discrete grains or quantum units. David Bohm has said that if you take the lenses away, what you are left with is a hologram.

An emergent structure has an emergent property.
The emergent property is a function of the 10 dodecahedra which connect to form one Poincaré sphere, coming together.
Ring closure - the structure is formed and gains the capacity to evert.

ref. Drifter ~s1~ Flat Torus in the Three-Sphere and ~s2~

The emergent property represents the metalevel perspective from the structurally complete Poincaré sphere.
The nature of the hologram - a fundamental part of the evolutionary process occurring to generate structures which gain their novel emergent property from the principle of holography.

ref. Mikal

As soon as eversion begins (~s2~) - the central point in the cycle represents the path which time will take into a higher (orthogonal) space.

[Profpat]

I agree with Lloyd, Fredrick the space/time continuum is just that a continuum, a fabric. I think that fabric is made up of Lloyd's
E/M fields but also strings ang quarks.

My own view on the FS is that I agree, it has to be real, substantial, essential which make up our universe.

Since I believe in a big bang point that expanded I believe that is the fundamental substance. In other words our universe is the fundamental substance. It's just that the substance is spread so thin, that it takes on the "real" characteristics of being illusory.

[Profpat]

The little ink glob is the FS and the pen point is the point dispensing the ink in relation to mathematical principles to create our universe.

[SB_UK]

Flat because the Universe is defined to occupy the geometry of the disc emanating out from the waist-line of the structure within (a black hole?).
~s~

The universe may have been created by an explosion [event] within a [central] black hole ... ...

The disc itself would be formed (similarly) if the central structure (a black hole) was shifted some place else in space, because Fundamental Substance is an infinitely extended matrix, which structures when energy availability necessitates its structural upheaval to house that energy.

More simply if we pour in extra liquid into the soup dish -
the surface layer of the soup will rise

- where the new surface layer (exactly as the old surface layer could) - can describe the space which (upon creation of the Universe)
- that space upon creation of the Universe which will 'field' structures therein.

The Fundamental substance as an infinitely extending matrix (eternally moving) which only structures when beckoned.

To any structure formed within the flattened ring (of the Universe - to be imagined in the 'sense' of the ring around Saturn) - the fundamental substance which lies without (not connected by time-line to it) -
will appear black ( nothingy ).

[SB_UK]

The little ink glob is the FS and the pen point is the point dispensing the ink in relation to mathematical principles to create our universe.

Certainly, that everything can be made to make sense.

[melanie]

No magic__Just straight fundamental physics, within the laws of physics__A Macro Picture...

The law is the law. Nature's law. What drives nature's law? ... Magic does.

The law of physics is a known idea, who knows, is beyond the law of physics, it is meta- physics.

Too truly see how this physical 3D Universe really functions__I dare ya all...

The physical universe is 2-D ( two but not two )= 1 = 0 = Zero '' Life is an illusion albeit a persistent one '' ~Einstein.

Why is the universe 2-D ? ..... That's for meta know, and you to find out ....

[SB_UK]

The big bang event heralded the beginning of time
(the Universal time-line)

- where time (the imaginary domain) (1 dimension) is tied to space (time as the immediate precursor to space (2 dimensions)).

Space-time being required to self-assemble into the topology of the Poincaré sphere as the first requirement in constructing what we call reality.

Though where the twinned (dual) constructs of time and space here represent a re-structuring of only a slice of the infinite space:time matrix; only a slice of the infinitely extending matrix is structured (synchronized)
- to generate structure.

As such - the only parts of this matrix which we are synchronized to (which we may derive coherence from) -
- will be the structures which're formed along that time-line.

The time-line consists of an array of structures, which as complex structures comprise an imaginary feed into real component.

Time
seeds
Space
[the standing wave balances]

At which point
imaginary
has seeded
real
[the complex (emergent) structure is complete].

{{{ REPEAT }}}

[SB_UK]

All of which is to suggest that the male geometry (time) is here to confer ever more fun to the female geometry (space)
... ... where the male geometry is going to need to pick up on the signs and do something about it, when his matched female geometry is seen to try and suppress from his sight, (through politeness),
a yawn.

Referencing the process of Austin gaining an understanding that he should be driven by and not drive racecar.

Sapphire and sTeel

The Time Menders

[labelwench]

Allow me to use a simple example to get more truth above water, Labelwench (and then I'll drop the issue):

If there is one person saying that "the sky is blue" and another person saying that "the sky is green", then we have a conflict between both positions. In this case, we cannot declare this a matter of individual perception; it would be a false statement, because the conflict does contain a false statement itself (known or unbeknownst to the speaker who said that "the sky is green").

By picking up the color dictionary and holding it against the sky, we can confirm without doubt that the sky is blue. We may find out that the nametag 'blue' is nothing but a hollow jacket, and that if our culture as a collective decides to from now on name that color 'green', then the speaker who said that the sky is green would be correct, and not the person stating the sky is blue. But all we show is that the nametag is just a nametag. All over the world, people have given the color of the sky a name, so now we have a large variety of names for the color blue. We consider these words translations, and switching 'blue' into 'green' is just that, a translation.

The fact stays the same that the dictionary points to the one and only true delivery. This is a long path to stating that the individual perception does not describe the individual truth, though we all agree it is a major influence on how we view the truth(s) out there.

Hello Frederick, and thank you for your posting. I do not wish to interrupt the flow, yet neither should I ignore your reply. Most are used to working around me by now, lol, occasionally with or against me, as well.

On the grounds of language, your argument is valid. If, by consensus, the majority of the population deem the word blue, to describe the color of the sky, then that is the term we use.

But what of the person who is color blind, or perhaps totally devoid of sight? Your frame of reference is meaningless to them, no matter you are correct in the eyes of the majority of persons. What each person experiences IS the truth to them. Should my vision be such that the sky appears green, even if I accept your explanation that it 'truly is blue', in all sincerity, my reality is that 'it is still green to me', and my career choices shall likely not include color references.

It is in this way, that I say, our perspective is the ONLY reality to each of us. There are many things that I can never know........the past.........the future yet to come.......and for myself, and others with whom I consort, reality is ONLY that which each of us has experienced.

From sharing our experiences with others, we make conjecture as to possibilities which we might explore in the interest of experiencing.......

Trust this explains my earlier remarks and I shall quit disrupting the flow or you folks will never come to any conclusion on the topic of debate on this thread....

[gunnar]

hi everyone,

with the previous example of centre mass the line has clearly been drawn (thank you pat, much more detailed desription than a square inside a circle). dividing those who are fixated, delusional, stubborn, antagonistic... or just plain do not have the capacity to comprehend, and those who recognize the forms and functions of what is, in reference to human concept and the scales/systems of.

as lloyd and others have pointed out numerous times, mathematics is the best ARTIFICIAL tool in the tool box for specific identification and description of existence. it is however only a description (language) and uses a slightly different scale in structure than actual existence.

because of this math only works most of the time in application to actual existence. its like using a metric wrench on a standard nut, it works most of the time, but is not quite right. and if math is recognized as the tool it is, the mistake of perceiving it as one with whatever it is working on will not be made.

the whole point is calculations and repersentations of other structural dimensions exist everywhere, but all of it is made from 3D material. and it is no surprise that without this distinction everything would seem to be an illusion.

thank you all for the productive interaction.

gunnar