Thursday, July 25, 2013

Time And Relative Dimensions In Space, explained -- Happy 50th, Doctor!

NOTICE: This particular post has had so many updates put at the top, while the main topic entry got pretty much buried since 2013 due to the dispute between myself and the BBC over a snippet of content I utilized for the purpose of debunking previous scientific claims made by the BBC in one of its fictional serial shows.  The BBC has, thusfar, declined to pursue the dispute further at this time, but I don't anticipate that they've dropped the matter permanently. Nonetheless, this post has become fragmented and because it continues to draw hits even now in 2016, KNOW YE that it will be overhauled to an arrangement where the body of the discussion of the main topic will appear up at the top and the updates will be moved, in chronological order, to the bottom of the post, and will be continued to be updated at the bottom as each new scientific development pertinent to this topic crops up.




NOW NOTE: 
 What follows immediately is what began as the main body, context for which was my answers to a number of questions on Yahoo Answers inquiring into research methodology among certain people who got interested in what could be called "research globetrotting" in both the geographic sense and the temporal sense, so my answers described tips in terms of how to navigate, as time travel into the past.  I am still in the process of moving the Updates in proper chronological order, so please bear with me...

 =============================================

Yes, I did mention that I am a time traveler in a number of responses on Yahoo Answers. No, I am not a timelord. I have to admit that when I flummox the professional historian, I feel like one, though, to be quite honest--but I wouldn't call it gloating.  I'm all too happy to share--I'll show you how to fly my own time machine. The catch to the thing is grasping the concept as one of the sciences rather than as one of the social arts, although where perspective is considered, there's some art to it. Your inner Leonardo Da Vinci is required.

First, the basic foundation:


....well, it is the basic principle of perspective, but not necessarily "a timelord discovery" exactly. It has everything to do with being aware of what's a large overview of an historical event compared to what's the myopic view of a single person involved with said event.

What's past, what's present, what's future is all relative, both in time and in space.  On a given timeline, traveling the space between point A and point B (straight line presumed--line of travel isn't always straight) takes, well, time.  How much time? That's relative to what speed you're going.  I've often argued that the age of the Doctor is meaningless unless we know which fixed point in time he was born, and we don't, do we.  For instance, we can travel back to 1966 and observe the prediction of the future, but from 2013, it's the past--when The Doctor announces that he's 908 years old, we have to ask "compared to what point in time?", and "in Earth years, or Gallifreyan years?". Nobody knows and none of the writers have said. I'm sure you get the idea.

I don't refer to my own time machine as a TARDIS (much) although, functionally, that's exactly what it does. No blinky lights, no loud whines, but it does have a core and it does have a control system, and it does require navigation, which is why keeping one's bearings at all times is always important.

It's easy to get lost in the weeds of detail and getting things wrong because you've lost proper perspective and have no idea at what altitude you're flying (unless you're grounded, in which case you are in serious need of extraction from the weeds).  Fatal myopia occurs when you find yourself unable to back away from a person or event to see what environment, conditions, situations surround that person or event, regardless of altitude. You're stuck because you got too close, and in terms of time travel, you've committed a rear-end collision.


 How the core works is basically like a set of encyclopedias about world history.  Back away so that you can see the whole thing from volume 1 to the last volume.  You're essentially in orbit around the whole planet Earth at maximum planetary altitude. Humans are down there making history--all of them.  And you're looking at everything that has ever happened and ever will up until the date of the copyright.

Copyright date is important, even though the set pictured here has a copyright date in the 1930s.  Different books in different parts of history have different editors that are gatekeepers as to what gets included and what gets left out, so you'll want to consult a set whose copyright date corresponds to some period of enlightenment, because they'll leave nothing out that's known at the time.

Other eras have editors that cull information down to what they think is important at the time of their copyright date, and you don't want that.  Just because a book is newer, it's not necessarily better because of the editor, who is trying to sell his books to the audience of the time of the copyright date.  Today, an editor is usually trying to recycle old books under a new copyright to cut down on expenses.  These days, reference publishing has become a racket.

Now say you want to go some place on this planet.  Or you want to see the whole planet as it looks at a particular time.  That's what the index is for, and what that does is take you out of planetary orbit to a lower altitude.  Still, you really need to keep track of your bearings: points in time, points in space, and altitude.  Always remember that every time you change altitude, you also change perspective. The higher the altitude, the longer is your field of vision but you sacrifice detail.  The lower the altitude, the larger the detail becomes, including the weeds, but you narrow your field of vision and are at higher risk of losing your bearings. Never lose track of your altitude or you'll lose proper track of all other bearings, and finding yourself flying too low will get you invariably tangled in the weeds, disoriented.  In order to deal with details of an individual, you are going to have to land, disembark, and deal with the weeds.


So, then--let's say we pick a spot on the planet. Say, the Iberian Peninsula.  In the index you can pick earliest ancient history before it ever became Portugal/Spain, or you can pick either Portugal or Spain.  If you pick ancient, and land at some location in that period of time, then you'll be able to see Portugal and Spain as the future.  You know what's going to happen before it happens, because of where you landed. Hover, and you can see the peninsula without continental Europe, or you can just see a temporal era rather than a single point in time. Relative space and time.  Hover higher, and you can see all of Europe, parts of north Africa, or, temporally, an epoch if you like.

Let's say you want to examine a particular historic event; it would be a mistake to land smack on the event exactly where and when it happened.  What's better is to land (or hover) somewhen earlier, and you'll be able to see the run-up to said event, and seeing it as imminent future, and thus get a handle on why the event happened.  OR!

You can land/hover somewhen after the event to view all the consequences of that event, but be judicious about which somewhen you choose to land because you'll be at some point where the event is the past, the immediate consequences would be part of the past, but some of the consequences would be in the future, and so once again, keeping your bearings remains ultimately important in this case as well.

And always keep in mind that the lower you fly, the closer to a temporal point you get, your perspective changes to where things look larger than otherwise, etc. Always keep your bearings and your wits about you, if you're about to explore some particularly treacherous history terrain where disinformation abounds.  And avoid the weeds until you acquire the skill to sort them out.

It's true that time didn't end with 1930, so you're going to need to supplement your core with other material, but that's why it's just a core.  All it gives you is your basic navigation/GPS system, with which everything else you add will function as an actual time machine.

End of Lesson One.



LESSON TWO: What is time and why does it go wibbley wobbley timey wimey in spots?  Well, the basic answer to the last part of that question is that fractal characteristic mentioned in the update.  Okay--what is "fractal"? The Free Dictionary says THIS, while Wikipedia says THAT. Basically, it's a repeated geometric pattern, and in that regard I'll point out the old adage that it's important to learn history so that it doesn't get repeated.  It gets repeated, though, doesn't it.  Remember that, but also remember that history makes progress, too.  There's a behind you (past), and there's the in front of you (future), and thus time takes on a spatial character.

And you're already familiar with some bits of future: the phenomenon known as the "self-fulfilling prophecy" as well as predictable if-then/cause-effect futures; some highschool and college kids have become familiar with the mathematics of probability--Nate Silver got famous for his use of such mathematics.  Now here's where stuff gets wibbly wobbly...the theory of parallel universes now stand proven.  Now let's consider a branching fractal pattern...

The universe you currently occupy is the single stem at the base. You arrive at making the decision to go either right or left. When you make the decision, you enter the universe in which you are on record as having made the decision to take the branch you took, while the other branch is in a different universe.  Traveling into the past is easier than traveling into the future because it's easy to retrace your steps from where you remember you've been as the result of all your past decisions.  This means that you are not the you that has made different decisions.  What you don't know is which of your future selves is you because you haven't made those decisions yet with respect to the point in time in which you now stand.

The bits in the middle of the image, at the top, shows that paths do curve around, which gives the deal a circular property (more like a helix).

I don't need to see your finger stuck into a fan to know what will happen if you do that, so in that sense, it's possible to see a little bit into a possible future.  So remember this principle of time travel into the future: the bigger the jump you make from the time point you're currently standing in, the less likely you'll be able to return to the point you're currently standing in because your jump causes you to change universes over a wide range of decision branches, so rather than jumping you still need to navigate from point A to point B AND keep track of how you got there so that you can retrace your path back...and retracing this point in time you're standing in back to where you've already been is a matter of remembering where you've been (your own history).  And it's why that people who can't remember where they've been will invariably repeat the pattern.  It's a fractal repetition. (Note: taking steps and retracing steps involves a sequence of moves, while the whole point of time travel is dedicated to skipping steps of sequence--taking short-cuts, as it were)

Time: the phenomenon where events happen in sequence.  More than one event can happen at the same time (co-incidence) and the illusion of a "timeline" is a matter of tracing the path from one point in time to another point in time across a number of choices made out of a number of possible decisions that could have been made, each of which represent different universes where each of those decisions had indeed been made.  Your universe is composed of all the decisions you've made in an environment of the decisions made by everything and everybody around you that have co-incidentally made their own decisions along the path you've taken.

Okay, so the cosmic universe is too much for a human head to wrap around...so...let's consider a game of chess.  What makes a chess master is the ability to "see several moves ahead".  You could call it "looks into the future", ya?  The rules of the cosmic universe are immensely more complicated (with a lot more probabilities for things going in a gazillion-bazillion different directions of possibility) while a game of chess has, by comparison, just a few and you can if-then map out a future of how the game is going to go before it's played.  Truth be told, that's why I got bored with it, but that's a whole 'nother topic which pertains to why I find Othello preferable...anyhoo...

People who are chess masters are also time travelers, with a preference for traveling into the near-term future instead of the past.  Aha.  I'll bet you were able to wrap your head around THAT universe.  And a chess game is just as fractal as time in the cosmic universe--it's just that the cosmic universe has more moving parts with a whole lot more rules to play by.

The Internet hits I get on this blog entry have been mainly from the UK and I'll bet those are Doctor Who fans, which is why I'll add the following:  I have been delighted by the science behind the foundations of the Whoverse, past and present, and I would especially recognize the William Hartnell era for being the most, although NuWho does incorporate a few recent discoveries in that regard, like making both claims that "history can be rewritten" and "there are fixed points in time" where certain major events "always happen".  Looking at the fractal image I provided, you can see where the trunk separates could be described as a "fixed point in time" and along the route between one junction and another is where history can be rewritten with no affect on how the junctions turn out.  What Doctor Who doesn't mention is...in which universe?

 The Pandorica was used to "reboot the universe" but failed to explain how River's "timeline" traversed from rebooted universe to the pre-booted universe--or explain WHICH universe.  Ah, such is the difference between fiction and science.  Time isn't linear; however, with regard to a specific universe along a path of definite choices being made, a line can still be used to map the path between one divergence and another because the line represents a sequence of specific "fixed point" events.  Just be aware that the universe which these choices depict is just one among many, and this is the solid basis for how what happened on Apalapuchia is actually possible, alternate "time streams" and all.  The choice between the two Amys was a choice between two universes.  The time matrixes on Apalapuchia as a complete system can be thought of as a synthetic 5 dimensional chess game.  Dimension 5 is provided by the room of choices, where a quarantined person can choose from a variety of fixed points to travel through (Amy chose the garden fixed point).

End of Lesson Two.


LESSON THREE:

There are fractals made of lines, as the one cited above (so in that sense, it's linear), and there are fractals made of planes, like the famous one used in PBS's NOVA made of triangles, out of which came curves of a sort, too.  Those planes are the dimensions in space, where the fact of their repetition is the time element, and they're all relative to each other.  A human being (not all of them, surely) is capable mastering the finite cataloging all the renditions (a finite quantity) of a chess game.  That's what chess masters do.

From sci fi, we gather that a master at 3 dimensional chess is necessarily Vulcan, but here on Earth we have a number of human beings making that attempt in actual fact, because that's exactly what it takes to master it.  From that one may very well extrapolate that a piece of machinery that is capable of keeping unerring maps of which dimensions are associated with which nodes in time ("fixed points in time") is what's required to navigate the cosmic universe as we know it, only with every node we cross, "the universe as we know it" achieves a different definition.  We now arrive at why I call what historians do "research", and what I do is "navigation".  The very fact that what I navigate the past is also why I arrive at accurate answers to questions regarding it at a rather (apparently) quick clip...and "quick clip" is, of course, another matter of time.

In short, I do in fact navigate Time And Relative Dimensions In Space--TARDIS. :)

So can anyone else who has a mind to, actually, but it's not that much of anyone believes that, I'm sure.  More's the pity--as you can see, I give lessons.

End of Lesson Three


NOW NOTE FURTHER: What follows next is Lesson Four but cited within are links that have ceased to be good; reference is made to the science, the physics in terms of a particular lecture on String Theory. Those links/videos will appear as broken but I won't edit those out because of the particular screen shots I took to make further points, and again utilizing Doctor Who to convey certain concepts.



LESSON FOUR: The pocket universe

These are two different types of pocket universes.  When a string of fixed points in time are an accumulation of "bad" choices (unsustainable) you have a universe that is unsustainable for generating further fixed point progressions.  There are other types of pocket universes, and even miniature pocket universes such as would be generated by any given chess game (in chess, all pockets = GAME OVER).  That type of pocket universe would be inside of, rather than adjacent to, another universe, and is best represented mathematically as a subset universe.

The "explanation" that the Doctor gave in "Hide!" was lame and a half.  The theory behind the pocket universe has to do with expansion generated by progression, not by balloons fer cryin' out loud.  It's the progression that gives time the illusion of being linear, and produces the illusion that the spatial universe is expanding.  Time and space, along with their hybrid, dimension, are all relative to what time is perceived to have passed, as if time is a thing that passes.  It isn't.  It's an aspect of progression.

"Sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones. But you still have to choose." --The Doctor

2014 October (much later than below) UPDATE: Recent hits on this posting as well as THIS posting prompts this update on both posts. The UPDATE to the other post clarifies the nature of time as a sequential progression a bit better, but it also involves a discussion of space and time which brings in more mathematics into consideration, so please refer to that post as well.  Thank  you.

Related: explanation of strings, knots and physics. Beware, heavily mathematical--
{looks like that link didn't transfer. It's gone anyway}


Did your eyes glaze over when you got to the part about how the Jones Polynomial determined whether or not a knot is able to be untangled? The simplest way to deal with any knot is the way that the Gordian Knot was dealt with, huh.  Just cut that bugger. Who the devil would even want to untangle a knot in the first place.  Well, when you're looking at the strings, as it were, of the simple map of time that I've put forth here, with each progression you can continue to progress as long as the elements of your progression remain possible, as is the case in a game of chess. You cannot if you get checked by elements that are not possible to progress further, and before you know it, you're stuck in a pocket universe.

String is a linear construct as is the temporal map, but the map branches.  The string has no branches and yet it can fold on itself and get tangled. In a thicket of branching progressions, so can time, and so does the Moebius Strip if you're considering the abstraction of infinity but as applied by physics. Time travel = taking shortcuts to bypass sequential events, and is more easily executed where wrap-backs occur.  A string cannot be a knot unless the string has loop-backs in it.  The Moebius concept of infinity requires a loop-back, as does the Kline Bottle.

The video gets more interesting about 14 minutes in, where we go from a nice linear curve to the zig-zags of quantum physics and space-time.



The values of various thetas in summation (sigma) gives one a calculated path forward in a progression. Theta Sigma. This is the translation in English (not Greek) of the name of the Doctor.

NOW NOTE FURTHER 
that this post has departed quite a way afield of the question on Yahoo about how to navigate history anywhere/anywhen on this planet, but do please keep in mind that the entire topic either way is navigation, a method that works in any library as well as it would work in any time traveling vessel.  The past branches off and oft times comes full circle (hence the expression in the first place). Time, being fractal, results in the same sort of pattern in the past, which is why books pertaining thereto tend to be, well, encyclopedic.

There really is no such thing as a time LINE, not even for historians despite the fact that so many of them believe in such a fiction.  And yet what makes string theory an issue, as well as the "bigger on the inside" physics, is in that both concepts are necessarily linear, and even the current depiction of "gravitational waves" is always on a single plane, illustrated with the infernally linear line.  This the goal of this entire missive is to completely get out of the linear "time line" {ahem} line of thinking. :)

Now to resume the blog...


UPDATE Oct. 4:
Via an article circulated on Google Plus, a Frax fractal app produced this--gorgeous!







Notice to the BBC: you do not have exclusive property rights to either time travel nor the relativity of space and time, nor to the name Clara.  I was a time-traveling Clara FIRST.  I know how to build and fly my own TARDIS, thank you very much, and I have for a long, long time.  The sciences are NOT exclusively YOUR proprietary property.

Further, I am the original Impossible Person Clara. Your Clara is a direct impersonation of me (see screenshots). Anything you do regarding any time traveling Clara, you do in honor of ME.  Kapice?  Americans can travel in time, too--If you're spoiling for another American revolution, I can guarantee you one.  If the concept of a time-traveling Impossible Person Clara got to the BBC via Tom Baker, then I am convinced beyond doubt that Clara Oswin Oswald's character is mine.  I was on his now-defunct Tom Baker.tv website as exactly such.
{The emoticon image above was obtained from Tom Baker's website while I was a registered member}







I'm placing this March 2015 UPDATE to this post up at the top, noting that a number of links on this page have become unavailable since its posting.  First, note on this page where I discuss how time is fractal, not linear, and then consider this new finding as to the mapping of over 8,000 galaxies in our cosmic neighborhood also resembles similar fractal branching, and consider, at the same time, that the travel of galaxies in this mapping effort involve distance traveled x TIME.  That's what the term "speed" means: distance traveled over a specific period of TIME, and that I've pointed out before that defining time in terms of speed of light is a recursive definition which is therefore invalid.  Enjoy.



The article
The link to the vid on YouTube

NOW NOTE FURTHER:
It's about at this point where I posted a YouTube video explaining how "bigger on the inside" physics wasn't any sort of science fiction invention created by the BBC with Doctor Who, and used a clip of the same to demonstrate how wrong it would be for the BBC to make any proprietary claims on the technology since the technology has been public domain on this planet for centuries. This particular blog post was a UK click magnet, according to the blog statistics back then, and en masse a lot of links I posted on this blog entry increasingly became unavailable, whereupon I found making a work-around necessary as well as reworking this page back into functioning again.  Via YouTube management, me & the Beeb went back and forth about complaints and rebuttals, but here it is, the year 2016, and my video remains standing.  I further assert that the BBC has NO claim (no one else either, for that matter) on technology that is demonstrably public domain, and maintain that assertion today.

So--this planet has had "bigger on the inside technology" for centuries when it sounds so exotically impossible on the Doctor Who show?  For what it's worth, it takes an Impossible Person like me to explain the exquisite simplicity of the matter with the disputed video in question as originally posted on YouTube:



...and you'll see this again as you continue with the original blog update entry below this commentary, albeit in Blogger-confined low quality.  It's really important to stress that it's because of the things I wrote about up to this point that one can begin to see that any library is a bigger-on-the-inside time machine, where the books are the user interface to a rather massive data core just as portrayed by the Doctor's TARDIS. All it takes to use a library TARDIS is navigation knowledge, for the library also encompasses the physics required by a TARDIS...most obviously for navigating the past. What's not as obvious is what techniques are required to navigate the future...but...those lessons are for advanced classes, although I do cover the basic principle of that further down in this blog entry. Very very very basic.

The ensuing greetings to Auntie Beeb were the direct result of what the blog statistics were showing as UK hits followed by links rendered inoperational...





April 2015 UPDATE: looks like UK entities yanked some more content and I'm in the process of working around those.  Stay tuned.

I am perfectly capable of generating my own clips, you know, and while you may choose to threaten Blogger with a lawsuit if they don't pull my blog, you DO know that I have the Fair Use clause protection, as all this is in the context of DISCUSSION of SCIENCE.  Whereas the scientific principle of time and relative dimensions in space are generic scientific principles which escape any attempt to make those proprietary in any form.  This is the nature of the argument I'll make to Blogger, and it's an argument that has succeeded in all the copyright challenges I've gotten via YouTube.  Your loss of any such lawsuit is guaranteed.

Go ahead and make my day.


To the scientific communities that have yanked content referred to--you are out of line in your pretense to being high lord gatekeepers of scientific discovery denying such discoveries to public discussion. God didn't die and leave YOU in charge of controlling the scientific universe.  By all means, you are also invited to make my day.  Seriously--you clowns have already collected big bucks for services rendered and nobody owns any universe.

video

This particular posting is a public discussion of science. References to Doctor Who are relevant in that classic Doctor Who was based on solid science regarding space's relative relations to time and relative time's relation to space, which goes to my oft-repeated point about how time defined in reference to the speed of light is recursive (therefore invalid), and associated assertions of science.  There exists no legal venue by which any production entity can claim ownership of the equation speed = how much time it takes to travel a distance---in other words, the classic equation distance = rate multiplied by time, which also (with considerations of mass/change-of-state/sublimation, acceleration/deceleration {basic calculus}, other physics of solids, physics of gases) happens to be the definition of time and relative dimensions in space,  a term which is just as generic science as speed is.

Doctor Who clips in this blog are primarily utilized as illustrations of science, and whereas there's greater science basis in Classic Who than there is in NuWho, more old clips than new will be found here under the protection of Fair Use copyright law. The only science NuWho was good for was to demonstrate the principles of geotemporal mapping.  Outside of that, NuWho is worthless.  Now, if you people are here to find trouble, I am all too eager to assist you in achieving your quarry.

But since you've yanked the Doctor's explanation of time and relative dimensions in space in terms of visual perspective, I have just outdone the Doctor on that score. And you can also see the defense I can make in terms of how time and relative dimensions in space are a scientific principle of physics that can NOT be claimed as proprietary by anybody...



...and here's me, doing a by far better job of explaining what is NOT a timelord discovery...

video


Thus we see that time is relative to the spatial dimensions of the object and we may therefore include time as another dimension, and all these dimensions are in fact relative to each other. It's clear, as well, that time and relative dimensions in space is a generic scientific descriptive that can't be copyrighted, defies patentability, and even trademarking.  Titles cannot be copyrighted; ideas cannot be copyrighted; ideas cannot be patented, either, nor can anything other than an invention or unique process, and that the invention we know as the book has been a public domain invention for centuries.  Not only that, but Yankee ingenuity improved on this invention--not British!--during World War II via its Victory Books campaign joined by the military after librarians launched it. The goal was to cram more bigger inside a book than was ordinarily the case, to accommodate inclusion in backpacks. (Also HERE)

Now, back to the physics, the science-- if you think you're raising a good point by pointing out that the interior of the book doesn't change even though one dimension doubles, it's countered by the halving of another dimension, you're forgetting something.  You're forgetting that each page has the same range of dimensions that the book does, and without changing the dimensions of the book, you can increase or decrease the dimensions contained by the book without changing the dimensions of the closed book by the following:

1. increasing the linear space the finger has to travel, in the same direction, from cover to cover, increases by adding thinner but more pages to the book.

2. decreasing the linear space the finger has to travel, in the same direction, from cover to cover, decreases by adding thicker but fewer pages.  The size of the book doesn't change but the dimensions contained thereby does.  It's analogous to the Doctor adding/removing rooms inside his machine--when the outside doesn't change its cover to cover dimensions, as it were, he can add or remove rooms but also has to consider the method by which the internal spatial dimensions lay against each other; how they fold together, so to speak, and thus affecting the inter-room navigation time--and it's all relative.

You would also be wise to consider that time travel navigation is the subject matter of my position as a time travel instructor, and not the science of time travel itself.  This is the wrong time for the development of the science of time travel, and the one thing I would have in common with your fictional doctor is that I won't provide spoilers, even when pressed to under oath.  As long as you continue to be greedy with science, you'll remain unready for the future.



Hello yet again, Auntie Beeb.  I regret to inform you that even under international copyright law, science cannot be copyrighted.  The best you can do is a patent, but that's difficult for you because patents are issued only for inventions or proprietary unique processes, or improvements on the same.

Show us your patents.

But patents filed in the 1960s are expired, Auntie, and are public domain...but that's not to say that the bigger-on-the-inside transdimensional engineered Earth device in the form of the book hasn't been public domain technology for centuries.  It has.

Oh, Auntie, my poor giddy Auntie--be a dear and research the term "derivative work" before you get your next pair of knickers in a knot.  You're welcome.






Major August 2015 science UPDATE:

Link to article

The science is in regarding that video I made challenging the BBC on transdimensional engineering and DANG if that doesn't look exactly like what I was talking about when I used the book analogy, further down in this post.  The curvature would be the book binding and the rest would be bringing two points closer together by manipulating the plane they're on; unfold the curvature and the distance between those two points increases; fold, and a shortcut can be established as there's less distance between those two points.  Exactly the way a book works, and humanity has had this basic technology for centuries.  Bingo!!  Auntie Beeb, take the hindmost--you don't own this.

Now here's where string theory comes in--notice that it requires fold-backs to work; a completely stretched out linear-form string gets you basically zero. I've said it before and I'll say it again--your idea of what zero is supposed to be is what's holding science back. You need to re-think your zero. Redefine what zero is.

No Klein bottle can exist without a loop-back either, nor can a Moebius strip.  Those work in theory as long as you exclude all dimensions except one, and that's a false presumption. I am now very confident that science can take it from there.  You're doing great already!

Quantum mechanics is, after all, mechanical, involving mechanisms. Delving into black holes as a mechanical system is very intriguing indeed.




....and it's late April 2016 and a remotely related item of science popped up on Google Plus, having to do with traveling a large space to a (relatively) neighboring star but using a craft of very very small mass, to utilize a light sail for propulsion. What I don't understand is what took  humanity so long to understand light as a form of energy that can do work when we've had the radiometer for as long as we did.  #DUH





July 2016 UPDATE: The planet's best, brightest cosmologists/physicists still get flummoxed by time. Well, as long as they insist on using the term "arrow of time" as they did in this article,  they inevitably will remain flummoxed. This infernally linear mode of thinking, coupled with their reliance on an infernally linear numbering system and the mathematics based thereon, it's going to remain the case. They seriously need to be liberated from their linear straitjackets. Seriously.




August 2016 UPDATE: Latest development that resembles my Physics 101 video in terms of a single dimension folded over like a book is the latest equation--ER = EPR. E = Einstein's theory, R = Rosen's theory, which goes on to describe the Einstein Rosen Bridge, which we also call wormholes. This article is a must-read for the few of us who take science more seriously than the BBC's Doctor, who writes it all off as "wibbly wobbly timey wimey."



Post a Comment