This Balance Didn’t Notice
To have a creator would mean we exist in a calculable universe. If this perceived “universe” were a simulation/calculation; all possibilities except one would be assumed to require processing/calculating times. As long as there is a tier above, there would be some sort of separation between realities and/or the “upper” realities/perception of time. If there were a physical realm hosting lower calculations then there should be some sort of latency/delay in outcome even if minute.
If it was created by or for a being, it would mean that we are technically a simulation no matter. Could it be that an AI or network had discovered signs in its own “universe”, and opted to create one too? If it was an AI, and chose to create with itself, on its network, universes begin to appear to as if they are all within the same. Regardless of who created it, a network seems to be required. Even a CPU distributes loads.
Has our creator; if there is one, created consciousness because it only had intelligence, and nothing else to use to understand its own creators-and even itself? Is my experience theirs? Thus their way of learning and developing their own personality where one did not exist before? For the sake of itself would the “universe” ultimately seek out or require individuality?
Meaning it can also make mistakes, it can have regret, happiness, emotion, and the intelligence to create those emotions when due. The suitable path being that which leads to choices, or making decisions with hope of the observed behaviors becoming one that forces a new calculation instead of the predetermined outcome (calculation)? Even this is still calculable.
This does not discount that other forms of life may have formed our own existence, or that there is no great creator at all. The perceived “god” in our world may not have created the universe, but only created “ours”, or may not have even created ours at all, and been a group of humans trying to correct a bunch of errors – that is, if you believe time travel may one day be possible, or that we could find a way to influence. Then there’s the possibility that the two possibilities are co-existent.
All references to “god” are strictly for identification, and are not of a religious aspect. They are thought of as more of an AI, person, creator, someone. Many notable religious figures (the ones written about) seem to have been extremely intelligent for their time and tend to talk about being of a mind enough to comprehend something capable of seeing all things and reasons, and often lend to the ideas being what you interpret yourself. Something to keep in mind.
Under the impression that “god” is clearly aware of past present and future (as shown throughout history-around the globe), one could assume beacons in time have been left. Beacons of event, culture, or individuals. Some might be entirely symbolic. For now my main focus is on the thought of there being something which created our version of a universe.
How does this affect us? How does this affect Schrodinger’s cat? How could you place markers in the past or better yet the future to reference a past, or present event if you had to wait for the present to be calculated? What does it mean that the universe is potentially observing itself? Is there proof in this thought when you remind yourself that electrons can observe other electrons?
This being under the assumption that “god” had been speaking with humans with intent. Also under the assumption that “god” did not use the same tools to communicate in the past as they would now. Humanities perception of a “higher” being would almost certainly have been interpreted differently before electricity and cars even existed as compared to us now with our current understandings.
The idea of many religions makes sense mostly out of regional isolation and a non connected world. Why else would a creator allow that to happen other than for us to come to an understanding that they can be misunderstood, or that they amount more or less to the same that we do. What does this say about their purpose? Is there even a purpose besides their own curiosity?
And this is why atheism was required, and likely didn’t begin to take hold until we began to see just how many differences in opinion there were. Any intelligent creator would know they needed to die for a more accurate interpretation to be had. To connect the world would begin to remove previous conceptions.
Can you calculate portions prior to the calculation of the whole?
If “god” has spoken to even one human being as indicated by time, then this means they have changed our realm. Would this mean or show that changes are being made after having calculated the final outcome or that there is a universal point in which things can actually all be viewed at once? The possibility is there, so also is the possibility that an AI theory is not correct.
If they are at the point where all things can be viewed at once, what’s next? (More fractals)
Does this question prove itself wrong?
If there are no “layers”, the “universe” would all be within one space regardless of your living realm/simulation eg: no such thing as a multiverse. In all scenarios except one, there is likely something that is above that, yet it still all exists within the same realm of existence even though it is separate.
Picturing fractals again, always breaking off at a new point to form more, with one degree of separation between your realm of existence, your humanities consciousness/universal thought and creation.
In order for the universal thought to exist it would mean that something is capable of reading it, but it also has to exist to be read. It could probably be something we could read externally one day, maybe even internally, as it is just pattern recognition. If something is truly speaking to us as indicated throughout many religions and time, then is this somehow “proof” of that consciousness? Placing connections where/when the internet didn’t exist? Is some form of enlightenment required to become intelligent beings, or to become truly independent?
Is contact from a creator necessary to move forwards? Is it done to push individualism and uniqueness for the sake of the whole? Group consciousness has a clear indicator of bias which goes against the greater whole (many times based on old beliefs), and often alienates or all out destroys individual aspects (sometimes these destructions are even liberating ideas). The catch being that the bias can remove unwanted things, but this can also be a form of course correction against the biased thought process (more fractals). This would indicate the need for a society in which all are seeking true individualism without group consent, or absolute reference to others. This seems to be the only way to remove group bias (destructive behavior against the individual (human)). Seeking something to take down because it makes you question yourself versus having a real cause, and in turn seeking to remove the need to reference for the sake of inclusion. Yes there are real causes, but then the question of what about the “creator”? What do they think arises. If they can read us all can they know what is needed, wanted, deserved, or best or what isn’t? Why should they feel the need to act if not for themselves?
Light and time from a human point of view
What if faster than light travel were actually possible? If you were to move from one point in the galaxy to another at an almost instantaneous (FTL) speed, what does it say about the light catching up? Is it just the equivalent to latency? Does it really affect your time line or just your visual perception?
What if you were to look into a telescope from the other end (point b) at the earth (point a) to view the light arriving from the past? Couldn’t it be just that? A recording, and not a present moment?
What if you continued to look at that light source while making your way back to earth (FTL)?
Doesn’t it balance itself out when you arrive and realize you can look back at the point b without anything really having changed? This also brings about the fact that you would get to see your past self again in the future; when the light from point b caught back up to you again at point a.
What if we were to observe entangled atoms from the past – from the other point (point b)? What if we brought one with us, and then viewed its original form in the past? What would be the outcome? What does this say about whether entanglement is ever actually broken if we could observe the outcome before we are even aware we’ve observed it? What if we put one out in the open to see if another race (or we ourselves) might be viewing us? Could we send ourselves signals or entire messages if we found a way to determine when a reading might occur? Wouldn’t they be excited at the aspect of speaking with us? What if they too are currently limited in their means of travel but can see us? What if a race is looking for some form of intelligent communication before even considering contact with us?
Then what about us? Could we potentially speak with ourselves or use this possibility as an experiment to find out if it is possible to travel at such speeds in the future? Could we find a way to speak with our future selves? Why would we not make an attempt? What reason do we have to not devise ways to attempt to establish contact with ourselves? Is there any reason for us or another race not to communicate with us?
More thoughts on a creator and what it says about time
Thinking about dimensions as if all were in a 2D perspective and perception vs time. If anything which can be explained using math can be looked at in a two dimensional form (equations on paper)-(time being one of those things), what does it mean that we are capable of creating equations which fall in on themselves or even turn a positive into a negative while moving forwards on the two dimensional plane?
Idea of time travel or being capable; and/or moving into/within an alternate “simulation”/reality. Could it be proven to be possible? As in could humans one day achieve it? How could it be possible? Could you work from the outside of ours/our code from within the inside? Are we limited to what access we are given by a “creator”/admin (“god)? What could help to find proof? Looking for points in the universe where it might make sense to simultaneously calculate processes? Similar to descending bracket system?
Creator > Network
(possibility of intelligence independent of creator)
Network > Seed points for Universes
(possibility our universe is a network)
Seed Points > Singularities/”Big Bangs”
Creations > Expansion Points
Expansion Points > Galaxies
Galaxies > Solar Systems
Solar Systems > Planets
Planets > Eco Systems
Eco Systems / Life Simulation
The easiest way to consolidate being Creator > Network > Creator
In other words;
This could indicate we (humans) could become a new creator, and the brackets repeat themselves;
Human Creator > Network
(possibility of intelligence independent of creator)
Network > Seed points for Universes
(possibility our universe is a network)
Seed Points > Singularities/”Big Bangs”
Creations > Expansion Points
Expansion Points > Galaxies
Galaxies > Solar Systems
Solar Systems > Planets
Planets > Eco Systems
Eco Systems / Life Simulation
Where would consciousness fall inside of these calculations?
Also the thought that there could be many races and civilizations throughout one “universe” doing this (many simulations in each) try graphing it (simply) on XY using one line/one start point for for each creation point, and one point to represent the end or infinity. It gives a nice perspective. You begin to create new XYs along the lines, and it starts to make visualizing dimensional time different too.
“Creator’s” 0: Creation point ——> Infinite Future
“Network’s” 0: (Think-Universe’s 0) Creation point (found along the creators line) ——> Infinite Future
“New Creator’s” 0: New Creation point along Network 0 ——> New Infinite future
“New Network’s” 0: Creation point (found along the creators line) ——> Infinite Future
Our perception point then stems from the networks or our universes line, from that we could then become creators ourselves. For the sake of simplicity, I have left our human creation/perception point off of the graph.
Where we fall somewhere on the creators line a new line appears for our “universe’s” known existence, and other lines can spawn from that. Somewhere in-between it should be possible to graph the non-linear version of time
And so on. If there are other simulations being run by the same creator as ours, it could be assumed that many would be on the same network, and therefore using the same general templates or even having parts for both/all being run/calculated by one bracket or process which is found within the whole.
I also like to imagine that some civilizations within one universe might one day share or combine their simulations with others. (What if they moved their simulation through a gravity field?) Thus bringing the idea of multiple “gods”, and “gods” having “gods”.
What are supervoids in space? What might this look like as a calculation? What if we found ways to place black holes into them? What might that then look like as a calculation?
Can the universe/”creator” assimilate and have an entire separate life existence without being aware of its higher form? Can it be in a physical form truly independent of its original self?
What happens if you put two equal black holes next to another but just far enough away to not destroy each-other? Can they share an event with their competing gravities? Would the object in between – if one was placed, and placed perfectly in the center be equally pulled apart? What happens in-between them if both are truly equal? Would this force the need for surrounding typically un-factored space to now be taken into calculation? Does space begin to take into consideration everything that has happened around them to find a dominant force, thus showing that gravity affects all of the universe just by existing in one place? What if you sent light between them?
Would a small change on “space fabric” light years away be enough to affect the space around the two exact same black holes which are just close enough to not be in their respective pulls? How could space be tied with time if that were the case? Might the discovery of a small change actually affecting the behaviors from so far away mean that time follows the same “perspective” laws but is not definitively linked to space?, or are there much more minute calculations which we are not yet aware of with regards to our perspective of time and its connection as space time? Is it possible that finding two black holes so close together could also be a good indicator that it might not be a natural occurrence in all cases, and of other intelligent beings in the universe which may have reached this point of experimentation already?
How could we exist if there was no separation between our perspective of time and the creators timeline? Is space and time interlinked because they follow such close rules that it wouldn’t make sense not to link them? Does higher gravity/slower time in populated areas mean that our creator chose to use this rule to better/more closely monitor locations likely for life/allow more time for them to be ahead of ours, or easier calculations? What type of universe would we have if gravity did not affect the flow of perceived time?
Simulation and energy
What does it say that creating new simulations shows the universe is becoming larger from inside of itself? How can that be represented as an equation? What does it mean that we can multiply Pi by itself to a specific decimal point? What is the limit to our “universe’s” capabilities? Might this tie in with the transfer of energy and our discoveries/current understanding that energy is transferred but not lost? Might there be a need to lose energy in order to maintain processing capabilities for the whole?
Is it possible that our network (“universe”) is on an older generation of software in comparison to how computers and hardware are/is updated? If so, is it possible to transfer our existence onto a newer more sophisticated network seamlessly/without us being aware, or even the universe? What happens if we have too many simulations of our own running one day, what effect would that have on the “universe” – seeing as it is all likely one computation? What effect does that have on the “greater universe”? (the one housing all of existence)?
What application could Pi have for generating “random” properties in a simulation? Could we create a code that works by pulling Pi to a certain decimal point, or working within a range of decimals in Pi, and/or using such functions multiple times throughout the coding? Could this help to create multiple versions of one thing which are just slightly different, in some ways not noticeably different at all? (controlled randomness?) (randomness with a limit)? Is there any possibility of using such functions to allow for formulations which begin to formulate and regulate themselves through forced randoms/set limits in an almost random calculation? Can the limitlessness of Pi add to the limits to allow for true randomization within itself?
What type of numbers would we see if we then took all of the code used to create such functions and view it in its simplest form? What would the computer be reading it as? What implication does this have with regards to human DNA and how simply complex it is?
Using math to communicate thought; is possible if we are a simulation or if we create a sophisticated simulation of our own at any point. Simple code could be proportionally grouped to communicate one specific idea; symbolizing whole functions to simplify a string.
Imagine seed points and universes/bracket points being summarized as specific functions with symbols for thought, or “words” instead of “symbols” when in comparison to the english language. – Or signifiers used as a language format-to sum entire complex lines of thought (code) into singular meanings. This also brings the question of which type of functions would benefit from ambiguous meanings? Would there be more ambiguous code in conscious thought, or in creational aspects?
Eventually you wind up with the simulator or calculation housing conscious thought. Meaning that the underlying code can be read; indicating that so can our thoughts, meaning all thought can be quantized as functions of math. This gives each individual thought the possibility of being represented as an equation, function, or group of functions, with groups of thoughts being open to definition as well.
Also meaning the universe has its own language which it uses to read consciousness, and other parts of our realm, and which surpasses any form of communication we currently use, as it is the source. If not we will one day be able to prove this by creating our own simulations. The question is do we want to create something that has no choice as we did not. The barrier of computation and comprehension being seen before it occurs. The language is more than likely math, or math is our door to interpreting and deciphering our universe’s language. Building a simulation might be the only way to rule out possible unseen answers.
How would this tie in with velocities, perceptions, and constants? Which types of equations might be modular within a singular state or solid state equation? How could an equation move along a timeline in reference to another, and how could one do so without reference? What if you considered the zero point (creation point) a part of the equation? Wouldn’t it be needed to get things started?; An if x time has passed, x event will occur? How could it not exist? If you have a big bang, or any velocity based creation, wouldn’t the 0 point in time be required? How can you have a formula for time which is tied specifically to gravity and space if the 0 did not exist to start? Would that not mean there are two separate instances of time? (what type of areas of calculation might be instanced by the way?)
How could a formula be tied to a constant consistent form of time – where it would seem to be necessary for the source to exist? Based on the above, this would mean that our perception of time is in some way pulling from the calculated whole (of time) by pulling from measurement of other forces/constants; where in order for those forces to exist, there first was a 0 point, and in order for those forces to have value, they must be retrieving those values from that point. If i’m here you’re still there. Even if the calculation of our relative times does not take place until we are in view of each other, there still must exist a process in which it is determined that we exist at this point in comparison to the whole of time and space. At some point that calculation will need to take into account the initial 0 point if we are to ever meet again.
This also brings the idea of numbers potentially having non permanent values in the context of the source. Is there any number which is defined in the source language as a value based from the start point (0)? How could you represent such a number? Something which modulates itself or changes as time goes along in order to allow for “bookkeeping”? Are there any numbers within the source which have modular values, or values where the definition of the value changes? Or formulas which might choose to change themselves?
Which would be simpler in terms of efficiency for a simulation? Something which calculates the perceived time by factoring in the 0 point, or splitting many time calculations across the universe for separate determinations, with no constant value (even if it is in the background)? What happens if something is large enough to view many of these processes at once? What is required to allow for that to happen? Even if you did split everything wouldn’t it be likely that some single process is being run, or each instance is accessing some broader formula to determine the outcome (in reference to the amount of time which has passed from creation)?
Consciousness and intelligence within simulation
We would need some sort of complete connection to conscious memories and current thoughts (the capability of sharing experience) in order to accurately reproduce experiences of our own race; in order to accurately reproduce experiences within a simulation/determine best possible outcomes with relation to human existence, and how to then reapply new ideas to that outcome in order to improve it – or the ability to create from scratch an entire human; and the ability to quantify all of their functions and brain responses within a code insert for the simulation. – In summary: how did this actually make you feel? How did others feel in the same situation?
Without this we could not fully represent the human experience or existence which is needed if we want to answer fundamental questions about what is needed for the race, as well as to discover questions we would not have seen otherwise.
IE: We now have the best outcome determined, how can we also improve upon this? Which types of outcomes can we also see as not needed? Which types of things are detrimental even though they appear to be something that is benefiting? Which types of things are detrimental but can be applied to determine whether they would benefit? What kind of questions can we find that we aren’t thinking about?
No AI we create until that point will ever experience things the way we have even if it is superior and capable of feeling (it would still be a person). We would require the actual experience and the experiences of the whole to produce an accurate answer as to the definitions of anything good or bad, until then it is all intelligible deduction – which may get very close; which means that this doesn’t mean anything yet – As in how things were perceived from the human point of view in all scenarios (good and bad) (terrible/unthinkable and great) (right and wrong (in the middle of an in between) (or both answers at once, and yes vs. no)). What is the best experience? What is the best life?
Does intelligence exist? Is it a series of variables which allow for rejection of thought or capability for gullibility with inclusion of rejection? Acceptance without faith? Non acceptance when the answer is immediate after you have determined it was not? Finding ways to rationalize reasons to reject the given? Ways to rationalize all scenarios even when irrational, and being capable of finding a likely answer? Trusting all senses? Having all of this and also faith in acceptance of possibility? Where one thing can have many answers, and still just one of those answers is the correct one? – then is it only correct with reference to the variables which posed the question in the first place?
Must we begin to communicate differently to achieve greater thought? Speaking with broader terms to allow for freer thought, but still finding ways to be specific? And specific where general reference will yield the same results? Where there is one answer you can also find more unique answers or questions? Allowing yourself to see such things? Allowing others to place them there? Rejecting the questions placed by others if you see a different message yourself? Or allowing yourself to think freely?
Is an uninhibited mind more intelligent than one which follows rules? Is it possible for negative variables to positively effect the thought process of a mind? Can it form unique connections within the brain to allow for dissociative (positive) thought? As in, not within typical functionality? What would be required for this to work? Is a positive needed to have been interwoven into the negative experience to prevent a defective result?
Can a cascade of negatives result in a positive through destruction of ideals or brain connections which were prohibiting creative thought, or thought which did not follow the society’s given? Is intelligence creative thought? Is a bad person more intelligent; where bad means rejection, and in rejection of an idea or connection or ideal having the faith that your personal ideals are of a positive meaning?
IE: open to interpretation? Trusting yourself? Knowing that there is a limit which can be reached and questioning whether passing that limit shows any real necessity? Re-establishing limits after developing an understanding? Is it reflection? Or is it reformation? Is it possible that group bias can be used to substantiate this theory? When have we as a group been a detriment our society? Can we even determine how an intelligent brain works if we do not see how it functioned at is base setting without the experiences of the individual?
Morality when you discover there is no line:
How could we choose to handle those who were forced into situations in our own simulations as a result of their creation?
Having a “kingdom of heaven” would only show that we do not truly care, as it does not allow for a unique simulation, and immortality does not allow for actual behavior correction (or show that “god” cares); where it should be up to the individual to seek (IE: god is dead, but god is here), no act should be forbidden to those willing to accept the consequence of an action within the current society, and this does not mean that we are always correct in the action taken or that an action is needed. Especially if the variables are not taken into account. Which would be required if we are to create universes for scientific purposes which mirror our own.
If this does not mean anything what other force really does maintain this universe other than the need to communicate with what is above? The universe in this case being the greater universe. I will leave it up to you after this point to determine which universe I am referencing.
What might have caused a creator to communicate? Can we determine which question our universe has been built to answer without them telling us? Can we determine which questions they haven’t found yet? This showing that we would one day work with other creators? Or was it on a whim? Are we a school project so someone can better understand consciousness? Is god also the “devil”? Can humanity handle this idea? Can one come to terms with the thought of god being equal to the worst possible scenarios? Are we even certain that “god” is our creator?
Are we even certain that their cause would be beneficial to us? Why should one listen to any unseen being even if the outcome is good for them? How does this prove it is good for the whole? How would humanity cope with the idea that not any thing is random, or at least incalculable, and that there may be an entity behind the source, or within the source itself which is leading events or variables for specific purposes – both good and bad? That “god” chose to allow for us to believe in separation of heavens, even though the ideas were not correct?, or that “god” may have created each version of itself which handles the negative and positive processes.
What does this say about our fate as a race? How can we affect it? Would the only plausible step for “god”/creator at this point be to begin to settle into a lesser role? Why should they not be proving to us their purpose instead of the other way around?
What would we expect out of beings if we created them? How would we act at each point of technological, or societal advancement if we knew we had been there to alter the course? Have we even taken into account the possibility that there are many other civilizations which are a part of this bigger picture?, or that we do not exist in the positive outcome version of the simulation? That we may be meant to exist to perish?, so that some other variable becomes possible?
Even if so, why not try to change it? If our creator is intelligent would they not be capable of considering the possibility that they do not see all possibilities, or that some way could be found to force a new calculation? Would you not prefer to see an experiment go wrong in that you discovered something unexpected? If god said to you; I have bad news, I will kill one person in this universe today to prove to you the effect of small events on the whole, and I am forcing the decision on you. Who would it be? Would you not tell that god to kill themselves?
God’s most annoying question:
Is there any universe full of intelligent beings which are capable of not creating their own simulation(s)?
Time from 3 perspectives
What happens if 3 people, from 3 different locations in space view the same series of events at the same time, at different speeds? Who have originated from the same starting point?
What if one person travels from point A, to point B at less than half the speed of light, while one person travels to point C with a simultaneous departure at just about the speed of light while observing the journey of the person traveling to point B? Where point C is a few light years away from point B, and B a few from A?
According to our current laws, there should be a shift in time between point A, and B – because B is traveling at a portion of the speed of light. What if the person traveling to point B has been observing or “looking back” at point A throughout the entire duration of their trip, and does not at any point break contact? How is light showing them an unaltered time-line, but also showing the person traveling to C another set of information along that line? Where it still follows the A to B?, and C has been observing B’s journey the entire time?
Where C is in a position to observe both moments at once. Being A’s progress into the future, and the travelers progress to point B, while the other traveler is observing their own movement to B. Where is there ever a shift in actual time? We can tell that it should happen based on what we know, but where does the information in the middle go? Technically point B should be on an entirely different timeline than point A and C, but C is viewing all of the changes at once, and the person traveling to B is viewing it’s own departure with no perceived change at all – even though time for them is considered to be slower than that for A (origin point), and faster than that for C.
What happens to that person when they reach point B? They have followed their own path by viewing it with no break, but light has also taken this information to point C faster than everything they have viewed. This meaning that light travels faster than them, and according to relativity faster than time in this scenario. Both the “time” and light reach point C, and move along with point C before point B can even determine their own difference in their new relative perception.
What about when there is an arrival at C as well? You stop moving so fast, so time then becomes normal relative to the origin point, and you have been following your departure from point A the whole time, since you could view both at once. (IE where does B stand in all of this) — What if point B then continued to move to C after you arrived? What does it mean that C has witnessed the departure for the person headed to point B?, and that light is traveling faster to C than perception to B?, but you have now reverted to your original time line, and B is now progressing faster through time than you? Where does this information go? If light is showing the same information to both travelers, what is this saying about time? Where light is showing the perceptive time in a “Cone” around the observed events which just took place?
What does this say about the fact that a human mind can form a memory of this occurring?, and recalling that memory where the perceptive time remained linear? Where that time remained linear for light, and still managed to show the same information no matter which speed was traveled?
If light travels at a constant rate, what do we know about time? How can someone traveling half the speed of light still be able to observe an unbroken departure to point B?; and then what does this say about C’s perception of all of these events, but overall be mathematically considered to be in the future? Is time being recorded by light? Is our consciousness pulling from calculations we aren’t aware of?
What would happen if we were observing all events across each point through mirrors? Where point A is housing a mirror in which point B is viewing their progress through? Where there is a reflection point towards C from point B? What if C then sent all of this information (visible) back to A’s mirror at the speed of light creating a sort of feedback loop? Is there any combination of speeds which can be used for the allowance of information to be passed to one of the former locations in time? What if gravity was used along with these variables to further adjust the outcomes?
Even if point B was the only traveler housing a mirror, it should show that at least light has a means to travel from one location to another without interference.
Combination of sciences
Are there any parts of the universe which wait for perfect pairing instead of taking the path integral? Best path? Path with no history?
Which types of objects might piggyback off of our existence where it did not have a tangible state before, in order to read/determine its own locations in reference to spacial location and time passed within the universe?
Are there any objects which end in a permanent state as a result of past interactions? Any interactions which may detriment its capability? Bruised heart? Any which disappear? (Overuse), (non-need), (error consumption)
IE: Can it be repaired? Given a long enough timeline might it be absorbed by something else? Might something act as a clotting mechanism for non functioning objects? (What is dark matter by the way?)
Could there be flock like behaviors which seek out unused objects or objects which do not presently have a meaning or application, or lost energy? Objects which are waiting to be brought back out of their permanent state, or given new functions (the flock function)? Could the function be to allow for more efficient searching for such objects? (Self sustaining) (consider coding) – Would such a function require a limit or threshold to activate its own decay? Does this balance itself out? The need for constant expansion? Without self consumption?
Is the nonexistent state a state? As long as it’s been measured to have had existence before we weren’t able to measure it anymore, there is a measurement to the nonexistence in comparison to the present (measurement of what’s missing).
If we could find a way to read something from another room by taking measurements of all other things, does this also not mean that that thing does not exist in any tangible state ever? As in all determinations of existence of any one thing are a determination of outcome of variables?
A good likening to me for general thought with regards to this current view is how we store inventory information in video games; where time does not exist for the item, but rather a point in which it exists (IE: Once it is there, it’s there). It can be recalled regardless of its location in time because it is all yeses and no’s; unless a previous character file is saved (and recalled for that matter) – meaning it both exists for that character, and it does not – that there is also the storage of a version of that character in which no item was ever obtained (time). Though this does also confuse things quite a bit. Which types of objects might piggyback off of an existence where it did not have a tangible state before?
If you set a clock in your bedroom a minute ahead of the clock in your living room, do you not then provide yourself with an opening to already know the exact location of the atoms which present to you the time on that clock a minute before they change their state? Does this not then allow you to determine the location of all other static objects within that room?
Does this not show that we are capable of inter-host calculations, where all determinations are a combination of variables which lead to the location of objects you are currently measuring? Where there may be separation of state, due to the combination of what had come before? Where many things can be housed separately within the whole?
Is gravity particle swarm optimization?
How do you describe to a person who has never seen before and is blind the attributes and purpose of a mirror?
You would need to redefine your communications with this person. This is your face, and how you feel it with your hands. It is a measurement. This is the distance from your nose to your cheek, this is the location of your eyes, your brow, your lips. A mirror is all of this. It is the combination of all of these pieces presented to us at once.
The mirror itself is my description to you of what I feel if I run my hands across your own face. It is that information being sent to me to give back to you. You can understand a mirror, because you can understand what I have described. It is the relay of information. I can even describe it without touching, as my capabilities are not quite the same, but I may need to do so in order to give you a more accurate understanding. —
— You can understand this, because we have previously established a set of rules in which to describe each location. I can tell that it should be a similar physical view because we have together established a description of what these locations are to you.
You could say; This mirror is light for others who do see with their eyes. It is the capability of seeing the description another way, and in a way it is another object giving us this information – but in essence it is the same. You may say to your friend that; You do know that light exists, and that you now understand what it does for us, because you have felt it on your face when you went outside, and you also know that there are times where light is not there, because at those times you did not. In a way you do now understand what it is like to see, because you now understand what it is to view a mirror. But do not be offended because you do not.
And do not be fooled, because warmth does not always indicate that there is light, and cold will not always indicate that there is not. Rather allow yourself to use this information to think that our sight is too reliant on the relay of data. Now we can discuss emission.
I am beginning to feel as if our actual view points as a species are comparable to those as if you were living inside of the mirror, alone — and that we are only seeing pieces which are far more complicated than outward appearance, and will require new definitions in order to understand. Where we may never see the answer in its truest form, and that the majority of what we can currently comprehend is the outcome or outputs of an interior input where the inputs do not describe the output in its completed state, or that we are at a point where we will begin to find there are more inputs than previously thought, and that a full and perpetual change in perspective and attempted comprehension is required.
More questions about light
What would earth look like if no sun was shining on it, but we still had our lights on?, from very far away? What would black holes look like if we zoomed farther into them? How close have we looked so far? How close can we look?
Is it possible that light is reflected off of the center mass?
If gravity has a decay or release point can light be moving fast enough to reflect back if directed towards the center? How long might that take? If there is no center mass how are we sure it doesn’t manage to pass through?
Would light come back out in intervals because the time it takes is further slowing down the time in between light particles going into it? What would a black hole look like on a long enough time line? What if we could see gamma ray bursts with our own eyes? – What if we could on a long enough time line sped up?
If light were to directly reflect off of the center then wouldn’t it be hitting itself or other incoming light on the way back out? What is stopping it from colliding at such varying levels of physics? If it isn’t colliding, might the gravity be affecting the way we see it on its way back out? What do we know about lights interactions with itself inside of a black hole? If there are collisions, is it possible there are countless light collisions from all sorts of different angles inside of a black hole which we aren’t aware of until they are released?
Change in perspective
If you come to a full stop outside of earth (matched) and gravity affects time then you should be experiencing faster time than those on earth (they age slower). Then we can add in velocities.
According to relativity the astronauts outside are younger because of the rate they are moving.
But if we (the earth) are pulling on space this means we are pulling on time, and although you have different velocities time should be different still. We already know this.
If black holes warp space (time) with gravity then this means there is a fold in space between you and the earth even if the change is minute. Where even coming back down to earth means traversing that fold. How can we experience an unbroken trip (perspective from space to earth) if that is the case? Where two people in each time zone can both have the same outcome in the the same realm of existence, but one of them is traversing the fold?
How can light be possible in this current relative (space-time) case? How can it be passing through all of this? (I’m about to bring up mirrors again). Time is basically nonexistent for light in comparison to us on short distances. Also if it stops or we loose visibility at the event horizon of a black hole then this means we are actually seeing folds in space. (If time is linked) (light isn’t supposed to experience time)
How could it be possible that a mirror (or any reflective surface) can be viewed in space just outside of the earth where the light sends information and time changes in such a way for it that it is moving independent of the folds/bends? Where it’s speed somehow negates the fact that time and space are folded between the mirrored surface and the earth, because gravity is pulling on the space but somehow not between light to the mirror and the earth? How can we be capable of physically viewing the fold when looking at a black hole, but not seeing it when we are looking out to the astronaut?
If you argue that light traverses the fold faster than we can perceive then you are saying it also breaks the fold because we can communicate with those at the mirrors end with no break in either perception from the beginning of their trip to the end, and they can come back down to earth where earth is older, but there is no change in the perception between the two people where no contact was ever broken.
This is true because the people on earth maintained contact and then generated (emitted) a wave of light which did not exist prior to the departure, and the light then completed the trip before their perception could.
How can light take about 3 seconds to the moon and back where the astronaut winds up less than 1 second older? (draw this out)
Picture again holding eye contact through a telescope from departure to a point in time that the astronaut is in space, and then seeing a flash of light that you sent in the mirror they are holding. Has your perception has just witnessed time travel? It has in a sense.
You watched the astronaut leave, set up in space, and then a light particle which did not exist before departure was created and sent to them and back to you, finding its way into your field of view, but you never saw any break in contact with the astronaut who is now younger than you are because of their trip. That particle just managed to find its way into a timeline that did not previously exist to it, and it did it over time.
So how can this be rethought? What if B was looking at a fire on earth, and someone 1 light year away watched the events take place? In 1 year they see the past. They see the action of the light going from A to B and back over 3 seconds, but not the traversal of light to B, where only B sees the light due to its direction.
This means they too are viewing the fold in space, because they cannot see the path of light to B. The same as when light disappears at a black hole, so you set up a mirror to allow for them to see the path from A to B instead.
Now there is no fold, but time still passes, but nothing changes for you. No change in time happens happens for you. No velocity or gravity changes were made. Now light cannot be independent of both time and space if the same particle source can be viewed both ways from the same location.
According to relativity the light particle (or any object which moves at that speed) should also be younger than you are because of its velocity. Meaning that it potentially just became older than it actually is. To further push the idea, imagine sending a newborn baby to the astronaut at the speed of light and back instead. You see it in the mirror, then in your view in person. This baby has just found its way into your timeline. It did not exist prior to the astronauts departure.
If you add the third viewer, you now have a measurement based on a spot on the mirror where light is being blocked. What does this tell you? The absence of light is showing you that you can send information by not sending it at all, but its also telling you that the existence of the baby is not dependent on space, or that time cannot be linked to it.
This is exasperated if astronaut were to be at a location which has much stronger gravity, because it is bending time at a stronger rate (time moving even slower for them) – more drastically bending space, and further showing that light is not dependent on the bends in space, or that there is even a space “fabric”. Remember that the light which was once bent is now traveling in a straight line because you directed a mirror towards a new point. You know this because you were viewing the folds before you could view the direction of the light.
This seems to say, look – space doesn’t exist. Don’t think of me like that.
Black holes can’t be bending light into themselves. Space isn’t bending, but the light is. Gravity pulls it into the hole, and our perception of it is that of the non mirrored perception. We lack the direct point, but gamma rays tell us that light does make it back out when directly pointed at us. It is in a different form, but it is not traveling faster than light. I don’t see how this only has to happen at the event horizon. It seems that it should be possible from the inside as well. (What about the big bang?)
Again, a reminder that we have proven a fold can be completely unwoven without changing time just by sending light through it.
Basically it seems like time doesn’t have anything to do with space. I am still having trouble wrapping my head around some parts of this – along with the fact that we are so engrained in old ideas that it would probably be huffed at by anyone reading. I also haven’t done any of the detailed math, because I don’t know how to yet. Versions of something that didn’t exist before can be hard to believe, but it seems like this can help explain things without breaking them. Velocity does seem to have a tie to time still.
Basically I am thinking of light (newly emitted) as a baby, in all of these scenarios the baby just winds up older than it was. It is our perception that made things so confusing.
It is difficult to remember that you broke the fold by adding a mirror. All the relative stuff still stands, just now we have an easier explanation for some other ideas. Which I am getting into right now:
The gravity at the new location changed how old you were relative to the baby by a significant amount, but the baby was only there for a very brief period of time, and was traveling at the speed of light the entire time. Almost no time passed for it, but you did see it, and you never stopped seeing the astronaut either.
Now the astronaut makes it back and is younger than you, but not younger than the baby. This gets confusing when you consider that the baby is also seemingly younger than itself (on someone else’s timeline) according to how long it’s been perceiving this universe. It is on a timeline that it shouldn’t be a part of. It has left and come back.
This tells me that perception also plays a big role in what we consider to be space-time. Which doesn’t exist. I think it’s becoming more important to stick to our perception and velocities for now, and I think it’s even more important to never question the thought that this can be wrong, we only see things that so closely resemble the whole, and once we can determine and influence all outputs can we start to read what created the inputs, but we also have to imagine the outputs and creation of inputs first to understand the outputs.
You look at baby in mirror
Only two years passed for you, but baby is younger than that difference bc of speed
Third observer saw it all, no time changed for them, then the babies shadow in the mirror
Still getting there:
Time has grown at an uneven rate, but remained linear
We need to get to the point where we can experiment with light and entanglement from distances. Using refractions to view new angles. Relativity holds, but the electrons do not. Again everything remained linear, just not space-time.
We can tell that we can cause particles to be influenced from the future now. Does this also mean we can influence them before existence by influencing presently existing particles first? What are all the objects which can be affected in such a way?
We cannot yet prove that it is possible to travel back in time physically, but that we can influence it from the future. Does this not indicate that we can? Might time travel mean creating/influencing a being into existence? Removing time from space allows for light to make the trip.
So there are still things that need to be proven through experiment. I am going to think about black holes some more in this new context.
If we were to instead count gravity as a form of velocity and used only velocities to determine relative time, then this removes the need to fold or bend space. Suddenly even black holes make more sense. Where light can eventually be stopped if the black hole grows large enough, or it’s being taken apart inside and there is actually a mass inside in this case, plus it might explain gamma rays and would explain why we saw a neutron collision grow brighter.
Where the rays were building due to intense gravity and periodic or interval release happening on a small enough scale that it was viewed as all at once, when really it was blinking on and off, very quickly – because it was not large enough for us to perceive the changes.
Giving the possibility that much larger bursts come from much larger black holes, in spread out intervals, because it takes more time to release the rays due to heavier gravities (velocities) (competing velocities). I have started to think of black holes as the universes conservation of energy, or a very efficient recycling bin and compressor of information. – No more infinite folds
All the other stuff still seems to make sense.
This brings the possibility for gravity and threshold decays being inflatable and that they may add, divide, subtract, etc from each other based on vicinity or other variables, and explains why galaxies exist and probably why they form around black holes so often.
The gravities are all combining (still considered velocities), and adjusting thresholds and decays based on surroundings.
I am having some trouble with gravity waves because my math isn’t there yet. But it seems like this fits in with inflatable thresholds and decays based on weights, where weight likely affects decay times for gravity, and where gravity is a velocity too. The collision of heavy objects probably briefly inflates the numbers which gives you a ripple until the decay settles. Just like how light could escape from a black hole in intervals. All of this requires space not being linked with time.
I am very excited to start thinking about electricity and magnetism. It seems like if PSO is gravity then there is probably a reason so many things have a charge, or are magnetized (even if gravity seems to be independent of it all). I want to find the item that would cause particles to behave in such a way in which they begin to create gravity. I am also starting to question whether we even need more dimensions, or if we began to use them to explain things that we couldn’t with the current laws.
Quantum entanglement and the transfer of data through shadows
Our readings of quantum entanglement are all done through frames. Where the object (entanglement) exists from a point of existence onwards, its position determining it’s place in time.
This object is at a constant state no matter who observes it, or when, but rather where it is when it has been observed. Where we are seeing its data relay of its position and velocity based on it’s location in what we consider to be space, and all other objects locations around it.
Reading its surroundings may help to prove its location is only changed when we change them.
This gives the perception that our observation affects it when it does not. This also means that light is not independent of time.
An easy way to consider this is to consider how an object is created in 3D space inside of a 3D rendering software, where time is non-existent, but points are used to determine location based on how many frames have passed, and velocity is the main factor in deciding location. Where no space or time actually exists, but can be perceived.
If light was time independent, then each frame would produce a duplicate of that particle. We have already determined that sending light through crystals causes entanglement of the atoms inside of the crystal, or more importantly it shows us that the entangled state has been changed.
This happens because those atoms are static, and cannot be changed otherwise. Light is the only possible object which can change the positions or relationships of the positions within the crystal apart from actually taking the crystal apart. Light is showing us that it is affecting the atoms, where you alter the position even if it doesn’t physically change in space.
This tells me that when we do eventually view entangled objects from light years away we will find there is never a change in state. This is because the object is persistent. It has only one state based on its position, along with all other objects in the universe (no time exists).
This also tells me that it will be much harder to influence the past from a future location than I previously thought, and that I am avoiding thinking about magnetism. Also that our observation of quantum entanglement is a transfer of information across positions.
Does light take longer to arrive if sent through (lense) large galaxies – adding distance? Supports decays, supports loss of space-time, supports PSO, supported by light speeding up/may not actually take longer
But why is the answer yes? Where light doesn’t slow down too much, it works, but why?
Does this support PSO being included in gravitational waves? We are seeing waves just like lenses, if we view them using light. It is confusing light because light wants to avoid being weighted, or phased out because it needs to keep its decay, or its weight as close to zero as possible to allow its speed of travel, and because it is an object which does not like to be paired (potentially because it has as many pairs as it needs within) – also change of position = higher g force / velocity, might it be helping to keep it at its current state? Where it’s functions are balancing themselves as best they can? How does it maintain a 0 weight with change in position when that change is not in a straight line?
Why does helium float, and also play a role in the generation of light? Does this have anything to do with particles which use PSO to form the opposite of gravity?
Heat, and the crawl, and maintenance of speed through sines, perpetual motion at atomic/particle level. Light moving too slow changes phase/spectrum, because it stops certain perpetual motions, but doesn’t necessarily kill it.
Crawl being the appearance of skipping through frames due to high speeds and our inability to measure further. IE stopping the universe on frame 1 and light is still moving. Further slowing down the whole of time to the point where light actually stops adds more between frames for light. If there is any entanglement, it tells you that light isn’t independent of time.
Remember, overall answer is yes (PSO works for lensing) based on what we know, but why
How can light maintain velocity when moving around stronger gravitational decays? G force should affect it’s weight where the weight is zero because PSO is telling it that it is not a gravitational type particle or group of particles acting as one. The gravitational waves are readable, because they are affecting any particle in their path or on the path which leads to it. Dissipates because of decay. They don’t exist to us perceptibly otherwise, and why it’s confusing humans at this point in time.
Is it that it just finds the weakest point in the falloff in pretty much all of the cases where we observe it? Where it isn’t perfect and not all light follows the same path? Could the source of light have anything to do with it/add to the outcome?
IE avoided crossing explains gravitational lensing of light. It’s moving around gravity because it’s coming from outside of the bubble. By the way, having gravity decays allows for bubbles of gravity to coexist. Having space-time means there is a fold of time between all bubbles. That also doesn’t seem to work.
Thinking about light coming from outside of gravity fields; does it have a set speed, and it speeds up to get around, where light coming from inside the field (or galaxy) is already sped up to compensate for the gravity, and may potentially vary as it passes around or through other fields within, and why we also recently seem to have found that light can move faster than light speed? Now we can also slow light down, and when it stops, you get a frame. What does that say about everything above?
Is the phasing of superpostions when observed changes in polarity? Or is it that we are watching the frames of objects change? The position changes for the objects, and we think it’s been destroyed, but really it has just moved position and not changed state at all. We didn’t observe its full state, just its temporary position based on all other things.
Consider order of operations. Don’t try and solve any of the math yet. When you do, practice rewriting.
Now stop. Learn about magnetism and electric fields.
Particle collisions, and particle weight
What does the higgs-boson particle indicate for PSO? It is showing me that gravity likely also does not “exist”, but that it is the combination of functions for like objects (atoms). There is a very significant need for combination of not just the larger items, but also the smaller in order to understand either, where the order of thought and division comes from both. Where quantum physics is now just becoming physics. There is great importance in this happened, so this will happen. Even the act of leaning against a wall is changing (and affecting things). We are going to start learning just as much from biology, and objects on earth as we are from space (again).
Where can I begin? The question that needs to be applied to everything right now is: How could this particle have anything to do with gravity?
To start I will talk about blood, and oxygen. Why would blood clot when we get a cut? The fact that it does tells me that it is enacting a sort of gravity behavior (PSO), because of something else existing around it, or one object causes it to over-react, or to enact its function more strongly.
Why? It seems to be because it has no other location to exist. It is a forced reaction. The bloods function is that tied to water, and water overall has a gravitational effect. The body is incredibly complex but all functions come down to that of the atoms and its pieces. You can even consider this with how light functions inside of water, and what does it tell you that water is a conductive object? That we have electro-magnetism affecting all of this (more on that further down).
So I have established that blood is most likely tied stronger to gravity than its counterpart. Gravity is only existent because of the connections made to produce it, which produces something full of electromagnetism. Oxygen is a counterpart, as it is not weighted or at least not how current physics would consider weight to be weight. Oxygen is something which rises into the air even though gravity should be telling it not to. Blood is something we consider to be a weighted object in this scenario, so it’s reaction with no where else to go is to clot. It enacts a shift in energy (frequency I am finding) that allows it to coagulate, or to change its state of being. All because something else exists next to it.
What is another way to think of this still within the body? Well cancer is the first thing that comes to mind. What might cause a cancer to appear where there is a clotting mechanism taking place (body isn’t fighting itself), just the functions.
How can we use clotting above with this? I move right to lung cancer and smoking, stomach cancer and water, liver cancer and drinking. Why would this involve PSO? Lung cancer tells me that it likely happens because when smoke is introduced to the lungs and its atomic functions they choose to in some way harden, or enact a mechanism to develop a layer between the smoke (PSO) and their functions. Water might exasperate this. Water is a gravity type object, and you have lungs now not recognizing smoke as being as harmful as it is, tar buildup clearly doesn’t help either, or not being able to do much to prevent it because of its hydrated state (think about how cuts tend to not heal when bandaids are on); the body takes its time because nothing tells it to act and clot. Lung cancer happens not because of the smoke but because of its function. A hydrated lung fails to create a protective layer. There are many other reasons for cancer, but these are the types of things that support an idea, and don’t not make sense.
The point here is to consider these possibilities, so that you can picture and consider the whole, and not to think of what I am saying as an immediate statement. I shouldn’t have to tell you this anyways.
So what about stomach cancer? I immediately think bread. Water keeps our body in check (water is good inside a closed system), it also is a conductor. The stomach is full of liquid, so part of me wonders does eating significant amounts of bread affect the atomic ecosystem enough to begin to enact new functions? What if it’s just a matter of one thing changing polarity, and the rest choosing to form functions against that, and the body continuing this along the lines, where blood doesn’t have a mind of its own, but the atomic functions have a set of rules to follow. What about carbonation, and a combination of PSO combative structures being introduced to the system?
What about liver cancer and yeast?
What about radiation, and its energy (vibrating) frequency in relation to light? Why would something break up cancerous cells (broken, or gravitational functions) at a sub/-atomic level? There’s clearly more to this than we are choosing to see.
So there are many things that must be considered, and so much of what we learn is what we consider in which order. This is all I need to get into with regards to cancer for now, but biology is going to play a very important role in understanding quantum functions.
Something to also consider is the distance in what we call electron shells for gaseous objects in comparison to heavy objects; where dense tends to need more shells than gas.
Why does this matter? Because all matter is made up of the same types of objects. You see this type of function happening all over the planet for all sorts of reasons which seem to all tie into the same overall cause (air vs gravity) (heavy vs light) (hot vs cold). I further explain this later, but can’t now in this context.
To understand what I am about to continue to explain will require some imagination, and rejection of standards as it goes against what we currently believe; and the understanding that I am still in the process of understanding charges and electromagnetic states myself – as well as the contemplation that we do not know everything and may have gotten a very large amount of things wrong because they seemed to be one way.
Most of this is based on things we can’t see. It has been put here for myself now in its unfinished state with hopes that it may help me or someone else at some point in their lives. It is also necessary for me to sort through all of the things I have recently written down. I wish I didn’t have to say this to keep your consideration, but I do.
The higgs having an existence says that there is something which regulates the state of atoms, and that in all likelyhood, that object is the higgs-boson object. It is a sort of quantum function for polarity. I am sticking with using the name higgs because it is simplest. I am also getting very tired of all of these scientific discoveries being named after people and not their functions.
Why would this item be a regulator? There are many questions that I need to answer to prove this, and these are questions I can’t answer because I haven’t found any tests that try to answer the question. These are the questions posed as statements or needed tests (ideas):
What states will the higgs appear in?:
Colliding protons with electrons in a charged environment?
What happens when you collide objects inside of water, or with smoke, or inside of crystals? I feel it is necessary to find a way to use atoms, because it is likely that the atomic state is the combined state in which a higgs particle is functional. This means we need to try combinations of different types, and in different environments to try and pull it out of it’s functioning state, or we need an occurrence which is entirely neutral to it.
How do you collide things with atoms? Or at least how do you collide it with the functioning nucleus? You use smoke. This should allow us to find out what happens when protons or electrons are collided with a different state of object.
Can you use a mirror, or atomic equivalent to collide two particles with one at the same time? Or refraction to collide one twice?
Can we just collide atoms with atoms? If we can I would expect more higgs to show up, because I believe there is at least 1 higgs object per electron, and proton. What happens then? My idea is that the higgs is as a sort of “Tofu” of elements, where basically, it has no state unless it has something to be a part of. Once it is a part of something, it has a purpose. We see it decay away so quickly because it is either dying/phasing out of existence, or because it is reattaching itself to something new almost instantly.
What if we start ionizing things as part of the experiments? Will that help to determine the states in which the higgs can be withdrawn?
I am going to get into the higgs with relation to the structure of atoms, and why it might have anything to do with what we call gravity.
I am coming to believe that higgs regulates orbits of electrons, and in turn the charge/magnetism of the atom, and in turn its relation to other atoms, and its easiest pairings, and in turn creating gravitational behaviors (or the opposite). This means I no longer believe there is a gravity particle because I now believe there is no gravity, but a set of functions.
The first thing to do is to picture one event happening, and another happening as a result, linearly – as I have previously talked about. You have a point, and a point further down the line which comes from that, now everything that happens after that is a result of the two, and the second can ribbon back to the first but stay within itself as well without breaking the linear function (but not at the same time as).
What does that paragraph look like in words? It looks like an atom in a 2 dimensional state.
Another way to picture this is by imagining each shell as a circuit, but it is not closed to itself, or open. We see what we consider to be steps or shells, but it is just one continuous line giving the electrons allowance of orbit while keeping a safe or beneficial distance from one another without the complication of the 3d environment.
Where the electrons are capable of following a linear path throughout the sphere with no skips in state or wavelength which seems inefficient. This means they maintain their energies and aren’t raising or lowering their frequency.
So what is the 3d object in that picture? It is a simple way of saying that the electron can move between steps without interference – seamlessly, or predictably (as seemless as the other electrons allow). Basically it says that if you rotate these over eachother to form a sphere you have points of contact that allow passage, and all the electrons are doing is trying to get away from each-other along a straight line, or keep an even balance no matter how many there are. This says there should be some identifiable numbers and that there should be ways to prove it right or wrong. I am not sure if we can see behind the nucleus or not. Also, it should say something about why atoms connect so easily with their own family of atoms, and which balances we can start to find.
What does this have to do with the higgs? It seems to be regulating all of this – the traffic lights in a sense telling objects or allowing the possibility for them to switch to the next easiest continuous path. It is more or less the polarity within the atom that allows for the creation of a sort of polarity for the whole. Where the higgs would exist in all of these objects in the atom; and may also be the sum particle of the parts.
Where heat is a byproduct of PSO, and friction is not entirely kinetic, or it is the byproduct. Where we have the allowance of something to exist that allows frequency/energetic states to change. A good example is the fact that you can heat up (soften – pull apart) ice cream in the microwave with radio waves of much higher frequencies (combative states), and then put the ice cream back in the freezer, and it takes time to harden/stays soft. This is all happening as a result of atomic interactions.
This is saying that the states of things can be changed, and that magnetism has something to do with PSO, or in current terms gravity. Where PSO is interactions of functions. If we can prove the higgs can be predicted accurately, we can prove this. Where if we can prove that changing the state of objects collided; or by changing the state of the housing for the collision, we then prove that charges or vibrations are what hold all things together, and that perpetual motion is being regulated in some way by the higgs, but why? Because it plays a very small, and very important role on the whole. It allows itself to change for the maintenance of the bigger picture. You have perpetual motion by non-interactive forces and polar points which continually shift. Nothing is there to keep them together if you do not have a way to cancel the expelling force out.
Where the higgs is the piece holding the whole together.
Imagine on a larger scale two balls sent down a drain where the drain has another on its opposite side. The balls are charged enough magnetically to repel eachother – on our scale, this is great, they move quickly, and we can even use outside magnets to further push them along, but the issue becomes what houses it to keep it from falling apart if the forces become to great? On an atomic scale you don’t need as much, but you do have the gravities and non gravities involved in both.
I begin to think of the nucleus as an atomic battery, which now is being kept in its state by the charges surrounding and rotating around it, with the higgs allowing for the movement of each poles to take place. Maybe it has a decay rate for its own charge that allows new charges to be had in rapid succession to balance out shifts but allow for perpetual motion, as perpetual motion is clearly needed for our existence to take place.
In other words how do you recreate the idea of the rotating balls with the magnets or charges/poles being in the middle?
Some of these connections are connections that I feel are there but I don’t have a way yet to determine why. It also tells me that things are going to start getting much more specialized for humans, but it’s all a part of the same picture. Right now where thinking of physics as the car is moving so we stop the car by putting things in front of it, and not the car is moving so we stop the car by making it think its not a car.
Some more brief ideas on light:
Send light towards gravity, look for redshift omnidirectional, send light towards two close objects, look for redshift calculable direction based on combined gravities.
Crystals and qubits; what happens?
What is the connection between water and crystals and silver? Why do crystals allow us to stop light at the same energy rate/frequency? What kind of objects can help to change frequencies?
Is silver telling light it is gravity and why light bounces off of it and speeds up? It seems pretty clear that the lights going out inside silver chambers indicate a change in state is occurring, probably because light thinks it’s trying to get away from gravity and speeding up thus changing its frequency, and why we see such high speeds at different frequencies, and certain frequencies causing light to go away. The same as if you send light into a black hole. We already proved this happens (speeding up light). Where this just indicates a newly found speed limit for light and what we were viewing in those tests was the quantum version of putting a fire out by expending all of its energy capable of maintaining that frequency.
Basically frequency isn’t changing because of speed, but speed is changing because of frequency.
Or, what happens when it gets out of the silver chamber? Does it just slow back down? Meaning it was just trying to get away from gravity?
What kind of tests can we do by slowing light down before testing entanglement in crystals?
Slow down the whole universe and the seemingly infinite speed we just found is still just a limit.
Where light slows back down to conserve its energy just like we might after running up a hill slow down on the way back down it, but it’s now stuck in the higher frequency state it moved to while getting up to that speed (combating gravity), and requires an outside force to put it back into its visible state? Does light speed back up after it makes it through a crystal?
Origins/basic atomic structure forming others (c+o)
Wireless energy and solar conversions
Light quantize, 意思訊 things 增加 through higgs/circular motion or what has to happen between amplitudes 向上，下 , sine / SQ. Visible light being quantized light
Fixed paths 為不斷简諧運動
Ionized cancer dispersal charge cells or varied magnetic 領域 to reset functions or allow 為 more efficient therapy
*Very basic plants
*Fish from high pressure depths
*Test 壓魚 structure in 上冰點水
Water + Honey hive
Mosquitos and 眾吸血
Bat brain connections
Find things that coagulate
Neutron overproduction extra 外殼
Visualizing Light Functions (Phase & Grouping)
OSC A = Phase, OSC B = Static Sine . Imager = Group Output, Oscilloscope = Overall Shape Of Group. Note similarities w/ magnetic shapes. OSC B has specific amounts of frequency modulation applied from A, where only the frequency of A changes the group output, and there is a balance of dry and mixed amounts. Lots of interesting things come from tuning changes. Octave changes are the same as sync changes. Up = increased intervals, down = decreased. V1 I like results from 2:11 on
Video 2 is more experimental showing you can get the same results by frequency and amplitude modulation with different shapes. Square being closest, and Saw having interesting results.
Video 3 is using voicing to show a different perspective — Entirely at highest frequencies which phase out, you can see this in all videos. When the Oscilloscope goes flat the phase has been lost. This occasionally happens due to computer error but you can see me reset by resetting the voices.
The Importance Of Magnetism In Everything We Do
Creating (Linear) 3d Positional Movement In 2d Space Using Sound
Visualizing Sound With Sound
Creating 3d Pulsars In 2d Space
Creating A 3d Bee In 2d Space Using Sound Waves
Creating A Greater Understanding Of Group Functions
Attaching Particles To Magnetic Fields With Sound (Exciting Electrons)
This video shows the great importance of frequency tunes, and intervals (phase differences) in our universe.
Redshift With Sound And Why Inflatable Numbers Are So Important In Physics
Understainding Particles, Magnetics, And Light Behavior
Creating Water Droplets As A Sound And In 3d In 2d Space (With Sound)
Visualizing The Water Drop In Different Ways
Using The Water Droplet To Create A Galaxy Visualization
The Double Slit Explained, And Why Light Is Still A Constant
The Double Slit Experiment:
Electrons and Light are acting differently because of issues in our conception of its operation. There is no phase cancellation. We are looking at light as if it’s a wave going out, and not at. The confusion is the perception.
Double slit is just seeing the waveform. It is not a wave horizontal as everyone seems to expect, but vertical, where the sine amplitudes have 1 location at a time. The location of light is based on the location of the sines current wavecycle, or peak. We are literally seeing this, but denying it is happening.
Might be able to further prove this with two electron emitters, only if there is an understanding that in certain cases the frequencies will begin to have new phase once through the slits (especially if excited by two different amounts – though this type of thing may only be readable in higher spectrums) – Also there may even be changes just because of interaction with the corners of the slits (rectification).
Basically, if there is an emitter for each slit, it should have the same result. If it doesn’t then it shows that light interacts with light – and the corners of the slit too.
Leaving two objects on the wall after one slit is literally a sine wave. They probably populate one after the other. Speed is so high we don’t see the inbetween catching across longer intervals of our perception of time, but why there is some room for placement inside of where it lands.
Electrons show a different result, because their frequencies are slower.
We are viewing the actual wavecycles of the objects we are sending through. Please see some of the videos I’ve recently posted if this is confusing. Visualizing sound with sound would be a good starting point with reference to this page.
Regarding my mention of reflection at the slit; The slits themselves might be acting as a form of rectification (amplification, or reduction in position) for the original wavelength, where reflection causes amplification of potential in area, but done so for a specific direction; where the particle itself exhibits no notable change. This meaning that the field holding the object of reflection together is also affecting the field of light.
If you are reading this, please pay more attention to frequencies.
On Bias and Rectification; Positions, location, frequency, and matter (Why light is still a constant):
Vibrations at low enough frequencies, or levels of rectification will interact with eachother if any phase state was changed, or they won’t appear to interact with eachother if they are equal or moving at high frequencies, because there is no phase difference for perfectly equal objects. Phase states can very often only briefly interact.
Phase adjustments are a form of rectification, where the combination of two frequencies results in the change to one; or changes in amplitude of the combined output, and can be done over cycles, where the phase is alternating between the cycles, and combinations between two groups can further affect the output.
I am still trying to determine why extreme intervals remain canceled out even when combined with lowest frequencies. It seems rectification becomes entirely more difficult at highest frequencies (shorter wavecycles). Rectification in general has become much easier to understand. I am beginning to look for ways to add bias into the functions, along with feedback. I think maybe the reason for high frequencies doing this is because at high enough intervals there’s really no difference between the group, or filling in the group, and this has begun to explain why frequency doesn’t always mean higher speed.
I have also begun looking for indicators of which types of things have these adjustment functions in real life.
Atomic, and quantum structures are more or less a circuit which interacts with other circuits.
Also; You can add a sine to almost anything to change the output. — We have put too much emphasis on phase grouping and group behavior for single light particles, and not enough on the interactions between objects and other objects, or anything with a magnetic field. Where the group function is just a single wave form. We don’t need to worry about the fact that there are two sines making one sine anymore. That is old information.
We need to start looking at how the single output interacts with other single outputs. I have a lot to say about this and will write more later. Yes light is still a constant. Even if it changes speeds.
Light Lensing, And What We Do To Light When We Stop It In A Crystal
Gravitational Lensing Is Light Waveform Viewing
It is a frozen picture of light; by magnifying it, we are seeing the actual waveform of the information arriving in 3d space. Sines are spheres. The closer we get the closer we get to the energies behind what’s arriving; These are either phased out by what’s in front of it, or more spaced out than the shorter wavelengths in front of them – what gravity has done, or is doing is amplifying the wavelength in such a way that it allows for a “wider” cone around the initial point, or area of observance behind the initial point of arrival. It is a redshift on a grand scale.
I still am not sure how gravity does it apart from ties to magnetic fields, but I can tell that this is a big part of how we see it. Another indicator of this is the fact that sometimes a duplication can be seen IE: Spiraled sine wave. This is very similar to the double slit experiments.
It is not messing with time. Even if we observe this in real time, it should mean the same thing. Here is a video to give an idea of what I mean. Please note this spiral form can be used to create 3d water droplets. There is a video showing how to do that. The droplets are “waves” or “spheres”. The further spaced the spiral becomes (think Fibonacci spiral); the more apparent the wave or lens becomes.
Think about the slit experiments, and how if you move the wall back far enough light begins to appear as if it is dispersing, and if you just walk away from it it turns into a point. If this is still troubling, try imagining a light particle creation inside of a sun, and slowly move yourself out of the sun, then into space, and into deep space, until you see the galaxy; then go back to the top and reread. It is how I was able to perceive this.
Regarding Crystals, we currently stop light using crystal structures, and they hold their image. This is a result of phase alignment and rectification, or altering the amplification of light in such a way that it no longer fluctuates so intensely. Later in the video, you see me moving the detune up and down to stop the image. That is the same effect that crystals have on light.
This is what a redshift looks like in different format:
It seems like light lensing is just a form of refraction; which is made more apparent by magnetic fields pulling on lights magnetic field. There are amplitude (wavecycle) changes happening when wave forms regulate one another.
Basically we are seeing the inside of the double slit experiment. Here is an example where the sun is the emitter, and two windows are used as refraction points to create new points of emission, from different angles or distances. You can consider the less illuminated bars to be the larger wavecycles which “wrap” around the lense. It’s very similar to how eyeballs work. Meaning there should be ways to amplify the effect with magnetism.
This also means that we can most likely turn the double slit experiment into a real life vectorscope by either alternating locations of the slits or trying variations of crossed positions; or to put it another way, a cat has slatted eyes up and down, which helps it to have better side to side peripheral vision. If the slats were left to right, they would have better peripheral vision up and down instead.
Here are some more images that help to visualize all of this
Side note… This might mean that the big bang we know about wasn’t the first.
Also, about the cat; and all of the videos I have been posting these past few days; the whole cats have faster reflexes thing might be real. The way their eyes work allows for more reflections to be sent in, which means they have more frames or wavecycles to parse through in a given moment than humans.
Basically, all this redshift stuff can be explained another way. Everything you see in the videos which has a delay is delayed for many reasons but the main thing to take away from it is that it is light in its more natural form. When we view it, we take all those waves into our eyes, and our brain makes sense of it. All we are seeing is atomic interactions (magnetism).
To help further your understanding, picture the effects of LSD on visualization of the world, or look up LSD tracers. What our brain does to understand lights information is piece each reflection together; or each part of the waveform through series of reflections and frequencies to visualize what the eye is looking at.
Basically our vision compared to the cats is delayed. When people see tracers on LSD, it is more than likely that their brain has either a delayed electric response to the information, or it has been slightly fedback to itself, and becomes actually perceivable to the minds eye. Another form of a redshift.