© Robert Cole 2015 Return

     Although ideas several years old at this time, Date written: dec30 2008
The notion that electrons travel around a nucleus and do so because the charge of the electrons are equal and opposite of the nucleus, infers that electrons have mass. This mass, proposedly equal to parity with the mass of the nucleus.

The argument comes to the nature of mass.

Mass seems to be presumed. Spin, charge, energy and mass seem a likely model when any of these are presumed.
However, this proposes that atoms are spherically enclosed with electron orbits forming the perimeters; the electrons having mass and spin and therefore exhibiting charge.

If there be an electron shell, where charge is differentiated and is so held in a relationship with respect of the nucleus, and that charge specifies the structure of the atomic model, it is my notion that electrons are a wholly unnecessary component. The charge thought to enforce their position and function being the entire specifier.
If atoms are spheres of charge, to which the presumed electron finds place, it is my notion that atomic function should remain complete in every aspect without the presence of the famous electron particle.

The charge sphere itself should suffice utterly.

If there are no electrons, there should then likely be no Protons. And present theory shows protons merely charge/spin packets of quarks.

If a volume we should hold as a proton is really the function of quark packets, it starts to become obvious that there might be no particles what-so-ever in nature of the sort presently ascribed by theory.

As then, all entities are relationships of differentiated power, their nature appearing, for us, as charge.

This hypothesis points to a universe of one material in active process denoting charge and differentiated power.

The activity and differentiating power provide it’s spatial characteristic.

As a characteristic, space can then be extrapolated as being an inherent aspect.

What of such aspect?

A great amount of attention has been paid to our notions of space. Kip Thorn and his peers have speculated about various possibilities for a foundation of the universe by examining ideas regarding absolute small.

Their notions suggest that as absolute ZERO space is approached (from our point of view, big as it is), reality may break from an imagined stability of spatiality to a spike and trough surface, and even to what they describe as possibly foam-like. A kind of spitting and frothing texture. A proposed violence of moment put to each ZERO point from the otherwise stabilizing aspect and bearing weight of the extended Universe.
It is a notion very much like that of a film under pressure.

It is my contention this model is incorrect.

It is incorrect because we have to this point only considered space from a single viewpoint. A not well considered viewpoint. There are different coordinate systems that propose various ways to discuss the always understood viewpoint regarding space. Always, the same notion - one in which the same nature of space is presumed.

I will assert that the reality of space is different than has been presumed. That space is a fundamental characteristic of reality. That entities are made of space, entirely. All aspects we have considered as charge, mass and spin are space itself. That space itself is an aspect of the true reality itself. And that space should be thought of as not stopping at the aforementioned and forethought absolute ZERO space.

Spatiality should extend below the point of absolute ZERO, into, from our point of view, a condition of inverse space.

A model quickly then emerges of positively-going space (that includes the presently understood space in which we find our universe) and inversely-going space - which includes interrelation aspects of charge and seemingly far reaching aspects that are lately lumped together under the banner of dark mass and dark energy.

Aspects of spin and charge and differentiation are entirely the tension between space and inverse space in all aspects of view, what we would consider micro and macro. -The preponderance of differentiated powers of the strong and weak force, electromagnetism, of atoms and spatial condition, of gravity, and galaxies and black-holes; all are caused from the tension of space and inverse space.

Space and inverse space are the same. We have a universe of one material.
Obscure Notes off my Hard-drives:
It may be that a defining separation of spatial identity is not absolute; but pertaining to specific regions.
Perhaps we sit on a foundation of ‘not’ - where what differentiates into collapsed and expanded spatial characteristics (our normally seen and understood universe) are dissociate and not absolute.

This suggests powers of differentiation - inverse space (mass/energy) with it’s outward pressure, tied with obverse space (normally supposed mass/energy) and it’s outward going velocity and gravitational forces, would be ameliorated by it’s juxtaposition with that that has not so differentiated. The powers should be different and calculations might examine this.

It may be productive to call space, "gravity:space" much like the Einsteinian, 'space:time' but where space:time, of course, is a geometrical abstract, gravity:space should talk about the specific states of cosmological reality. large and small, distant, envelope and non-envelope, spatially positive or inverse.
The concept of gravity-space will allow mathematical precepts to be constructed. It should place a perpendicular differential between gravity and space.

Various perspectives of gravity may start to be explored by considering the "Strong Force" - where enclosed envelopes, we have thought to be electron valance, are utterly happenstantial and do not exist - and where Nuclei we see as held by strong force are happenstantial but where the force is differentiating knots which are one end of a scale, characteristics of space being the other - and gravity as lines of direction between them.
My thought, of course, has been differentiating entities are obverse aspects (the seen) having inverse aspects as unseen partner. Entities having spacial identity have inversely going partner identities which are not seen because they non-spacial.
If the strong force is the "suck" of things not, gravity is the suck along gravitational lines toward the strong force. These might be not different from space - where space is an aspect of gravity or even gravity itself - an opposing aspect of strong force - being the marrow and glue of mass.
Entities seem like storms where inverse entities may be more likened to strings. These strings could be continuous but could behave more like a hairy substrate - where positively going knots, or storms, dance in ever changing negative fabric - like a drop of water dancing on a hot pan.

Inverse envelopes (inverse mass) create inverse gravity. which is seen as an outward force for obverse envelopes (mass).

Inversely going space creates inversely going (outward-going) gravity. Outward-going, or inverse gravity shows as repelling force in obverse space.

This suggests that the nature of inverse and obverse space are opposing gravity fields.
 
The attraction power of inversely going space (space surrounding black-hole), shows turbulence caused from the crush of opposing forces - inverse and obverse gravity.

These achieve balance and become locked. Stars are born. Their +Gravity attracts them toward positive-going gravitational objects - which is also helped by the outgoing force from negative gravity of the black hole.

Negative space = positive gravity in obverse space
Negative gravity = repelling force (creating obverse space)

Positive space = negative gravity in inversely-going space
positive gravity = impelling force creating inverse space

inverse space=gravity
gravity impels inverse space
______________
Therefore apply Galileo's gravitational constant

As my notions for negative space may account "dark mass" and "dark energy" - the root to talk about them is perhaps amending general relativity with negative components in place of "space-time" - which may then also be replaced with other math elements

Note to Tim
I remember thinking that a spectrum of radiation would encase a black-hole. That the perimeter, while still somewhat dark to the outside would e series of concentric eggs of different levels of radiation, where differentiated radiant aspects would find an orbit. They would create a pressure, where some be transformed - and some would descend. Some, of course, would be reflected back away and again be confronted by an inward-drawn field radiation that would be quite chaotic. This outside area might easily be found to be a kind of skin.
This could only find a likelihood in the dormant phase.

scribble notes
massive material (pos/neg space) conjoins potential in proximity. As knots of space (massive material) become more they would pull tension from without. Mass being a thickening and “empty space” a thinning.

If black holes are neg space, neg space would exhibit gravity - OR an interaction that appears to be gravity.

the  model starts saying that mass can now be considered the conjoining of pos/neg space in proximity and that this, in sufficient amount, or size, creates tension in surrounding pos space.
This brings the notion that space is possibly more in itself. We’ve already postulated that space makes up the fabric of the universe. Therefore, pos/neg space that would make up “mass” should only be an aspect - since light bearing material, what we consider as mass, is but 4%.

This presumes that our detection of radiation only shows 4%. aspects of what we have called mass that add to the radiation tide are only 4%, or whatever percentage of the whole as we are now estimating the quantities of our universe. The rest are the interactions of fields, of which, our “mass” is only an aspect.

atomic clocks (that are mass objects) speed up as they gain distance from massive objects, leave away from the contortions of space in proximity.
Light bends less

A field entity is one end of it’s opposing inverse. An opposing inverse. When one obverse field is exchanged for another, an inverse field is exchanged.
Gravity should interact perpendicularly and might, or probably, operate inversely.

Therefore gravity is a dimension and in fact, sets the orientation.
The orientation of directionality is a figure prescribed by a ratio of powers within the gravity fields - (that is: the placement of relative mass which create countervailing directionality from multiple sources - much like the pull of come-a-long pullies).
[examine particle results with attention to precise substance-make-up of test and with orientation with respect of earth’s gravity]

-s has perpendicularity with +s (m)
-s as gravity is really perpendicularity with +going space or mass

letter to Tim
Or General Relativity that postulates a curvature of space around massive objects; that directionality is toward the center of the object. -That, in an orbit, a satellite is actually going in a straight line but through a curve of space that bends the satellite path around the object, following the curve.

However, what is the actual nature of “gravity” such that space is curved? It is a perpendicularity with respect to positive-going (normal) space.

But all “things”, atoms, protons and neutrons, quarks, etc are actually made of positive-going space. Powerful fields that present as “particles” (there are no actual particles anywhere in the Universe). They are all entities, when seen, in positive-going space; - where such material, all has inverse, negative spatiality - and that inverse space has perpendicularity (with respect of positive-going space) - which looks, for us, to be a directionality we associate as gravity.

Negative space and positive space are the same stuff. Where we see positive-going stuff, there is equal stuff of the inverse; and it is perpendicular and causes a directionality.

The key is in reflected light. A cause of light, stimulates space - that is: sets waves into or of space itself. Light arrives through a media (including the atmospheric gas) that translates it in a form to a substrate which then drinks in or makes use of aspects of radiation and then perhaps reflects the rest back into the media.
What it is about the substrate and the media that waves of space are seen as light? What are the aspects of waves such that we see color? What are the aspects that we do not see?

It may be that the standard model as constructed for particles is false. Fields might only exist at the begging of some outside insistence - a force placed, causes a result we might interpret as a field.
Regardless, a field or a perception of a field might not have a specific core, or nucleus but a dynamic seating of inverse order. Therefore we have to examine and include an overall environment when considering a mapping exercise.

Point ZERO becomes the threshold of perpendicularity. But is it the same? Would this point be an area of change - such that, perhaps, our perceptions see layer or threshold laden differentiation? A skew in observable reality. This we call the quantum world but is seen stretching into our common, ratio-laden electronics, hydrodynamics, rainbow world?
It makes sense that the point ZERO is an utter illusion and this “point” is an open field of all points - and that therefore we see the effects of the inverse in all things.

Perpendicularity is from our perspective. Spin is it’s invert.

To talk-group:
The nature of matter is different than has been presumed.

The problem with people is that they hear or learn about physics and presume it is real.
The quandary is then placed to refine what is presumed so that it works.
It goes from Rutherford to Maxwell to Einstein to Dirac.

All are wrong.
dark matter is the new missing aspect - the aspect, however, is not missing at all. We are the ones who have been missing - the way it all really is.

There are no separations - and there are no particles (as the discreet entities implied). All is quite well attached, in fact, a complete whole.

The missing is not missing.
As long as people hold on to the misconceptions of the past and demand that these misconceptions be a part of theory, they’ll end up being disproven.
It’s the monkey trap - they absolutely won’t let go. They don’t even know that they should.

However, it is exactly what is necessary.

Let me put it another way: Everything they taught you is wrong.
And without getting into proofs - and I will not publish here, let me just simplify: There is a complete reality and it is that all differentiations are made of the same “substance”. That substance is the only substance in existence and it is in complete states of differentiation.
The whole thing is made of one stuff. It couldn’t be more simple, really. -02

What would the relativistic consequences of going the speed of light, in a close orbit to the earth - through the atmosphere, close to the ground?
How would observers appear from the craft? And how would the craft appear to observers on the ground?
Could this be translated to travel between planets?

Differentiations run to rails on either side of the common medium. This should be considered when designing for travel. - This is where radiation finds it’s greatest velocity; where gravity and trajectory pulls to either side. Paths of radiation are the natural floor, which might be violated to advantage.
Such a floor is in relationship with the +/- ceilings which would provide violent turbulence in places.


What is the phase of colored light? For reflections might be from opposite phase. This is an important aspect. The nature of light and it’s interaction and the nature of reflective substance.

Work out full ramifications of the notion of equivalence of speed of light, time and space.

Examine the spectrum of radiation - what differentiates within “space” - is this “space”? (space differentiating massive objects)  ~cosmic rays are highly energetic protons~
Would planets gain mass? What effects present from Solar wind?

The position of atoms in a field can be thought of as one side of an envelope that is proposed by it’s atomic environment. What would seem an atom is an oscillation and it’s position is dictated by local pressure.

As surely as light from a distance allows the view of the so presented past, so light that has long passed us is a view of earlier states, or collections of the past before our time. Light from the earlier past is receding from us. What does light that is receding look like? Does it effect in a detectable way, light that is coming? Does it effect other radiation in a detectable manner?

On the Great Attractor:
Inverse space creates a grand perpendicularity - where our normal view a simple artifact - infact our human view is probably somewhat created by assumptions that are taught.
Where the “curve” of space is created by an utter perpendicularity within - and that also extends to the profound distance.

It is also possible that there are grand folds in the contexture - that perhaps hides an amount of inverse spaciality equal to our understanding of the proportionality of normal massive entities: galaxy groups -and the spacial area which we understand they hold.
This could be seen as having the same effect as purported to Black holes, drawing all towards it. - except that galaxy clusters would simply disappear from view.

The theory has to have a scale where the micro-world becomes a part of the galactic world that becomes a part of the spacial manifolds. That the differentiation of space is complex where positive-going spacial entities (preponderance of mass and massive objects) and flattens out in relatively vacant areas but which are contorted into folds toward inversely-going space.
That there is spacial tension between positively-going massive objects and inversely going “negative knots” the pull of which create the veneer of a spacial manifold between them.

This might be based on an idea where the spacial-tension between positively-going inversely-going space is gravity.

letter to Tom
The heavens are huge, waffling inverse manifolds. And space also folds down into massive object’s (planets/stars, rocks, etc) inverse spatial aspects, which are entwined with positive-going aspects. These aspects are highly knotted. Positive-going spatial aspects grind up and knot up with the inverse and become what we see as mass.

However, this knotted up stuff we call mass, while very excited, is sitting inside a much wider and more dynamic manifold field. Kind of like a flotsam froth with  clumps of shellfish floating in an endless sea. Except, of course, it folds around into an inverse not-sea. Space folds down in that manifold just as it folds down into this planet.

While there may be little vortexes, we call black holes that the flotsam circles around, there may also be huge folds in the fabric of space that suck disparate galaxy clusters from vast distance - like leaves heading for a drain.

Answering Tim’s email:
First, they are trying to unify disparate math. The understanding of exactly what it is that the math has been propped up to describe - is almost what is purposefully avoided, in want of a current fame.

Math is and forever will be an abstract, that is: not reality.

cartoons.

But then, that’s what we humans think with. We are cartoon makers.

So such is consciousness. For humans.

Imagine a neuron - over to the left. The size of a rhinoceros, and long spindly tendrils reaching 50 feet over to another, off to the right. - A signal runs over and charges the rhino and ignites it into throwing a signal off, to a series of rhinos just out of sight.
Huge storms of signals blast in the skies above you - as fast as lightening. And after a couple of months of sky watching, you realize a thought is forming.

Well, also -
Through meditation, perhaps, or if one became altogether too excited, the constant rush of thought - of inner diatribe, might back away leaving a singular experience. Yet what is seen? Because the brain has made the images that we experience as sight - and so, a secession of “thoughts” leaves an experience of visions.
Regardless, the brain makes the images - that’s the main job, to create the images we experience as sight.
With no images, or thoughts, we may think it possible to simply “experience”

But so it would be. An experience. An individual.

I think brains are vast, organic machines. I have designed mechanisms - abstractions - cartoons, if you will, that perform the tasks of thought and experience, of learning and memory. To a point where, I believe the structure could be used as a template against real studies to map real brains.

However, being a vast machine - it’s parts are profoundly reducible. Yet we can see reality becoming infinitely more where brains and their resident personages are forever defined and therefore finite and separate.

I have contemplated what a point of zero space might be - where within what we experience as the expanse of space, any point could be considered as having no space, a point of zero space. This would be spatially below quarks, below all “things”.
Of course, space would likely recede yet smaller, in fact exactly further below zero as all the expanse of space we could think to make up our impressions of the ever expansive universe.

If we could determine below zero space, it would be observed as inverse. A nickel falling below zero space would appear to be an inverse nickle.

But then, every point of zero space would define all space as merely points of zero: therefore no space. So space is both expansive space and utterly inverted space - at the same time.

There is no point of no space for all points are the same spatial character. And quarks are storms of space. And protons are storms of quarks. All made of the same stuff. The real stuff.

So what is this big brain machine - with it’s disparate neurons firing to create a dance of experience? Each firing from way over there to way over here, from a fluid running state to state? How many times does this engine turn over before we humans slowly find an experience of the world before us?

Because, otherwise, we are begging to suffer the belief that our consciousness is an aspect of the basic function of the universe itself, not a product of a vast and wonderful brain specifically; and that brained creatures signify a deep importance.

I wrote Alan Watts once, telling him to imagine a squash plant. It nosing up through the soil, spreading it’s leaves, growing it’s buds; growing the blossoms and fruit. Growing brown, going rotten to provide it’s own fertilizer for it’s seeds as it rots into the ground. Imagine the whole process of the year - and then to imagine a fast-forward as 300 generations of the squash plants rise, flower and die away to each succeeding generation.
And then to imagine that he was one of those squash plants.

And then to imagine that there is no beginning nor end of the generations of squash plants. The 300 specified generations were just so he could imagine it.

In some ways, yes. Energy is how we relate. If someone hits somebody on the head with a hammer, he says, it had a certain energy. Energy becomes an aspect, hammer, head + energy.

Things vibrate - at a frequency and at a certain energy. But if we slow it down - so it looks like a house-fly in slow-motion - then the “energy” seems different. If we slow it down so we’re bored waiting for each cycle - the “energy” really seems different.

So maybe “energy” is simply our very prejudiced view. And perhaps utterly non-existent. Maybe if we were snails, we wouldn’t think about energy.

I think we are machines. The only question might be whether we are more.

While Magnetic waves appear to create the perception of time, electric waves move to the inverse spatial aspect (equally below zero-space or through spatial envelope equilibrium). Time then retreats, exchanging places with space (electric wave).

Space is both obverse, as people and present science has always assumed AND inverse space (what present science has never considered), at the same place and moment. -Both obverse and inverse at the same moment.- We and everything we see are resulting perturbations and made up entirely of this same obverse and inverse substance.
EM radiation may change with respect to direction and observed speed from the contour effects of spatial manifolds. There may be places where (o/i)space becomes too ‘stretched’ to provide a normal physical backdrop for physics observations.

Check light as going in and out of inverse space, or oscillating between obverse ad inverse space - does this mean space only seems this way from the view of an observe? Does inverse space dictate what the percentage of how light seems? Such that an answer to the nature of light lays in what happens with light that we believe there is directionality from a source to an observer. Check on phase of the elements of light - magnetic and electric/directionality. Magnetic and electric are noted to be in a 180 degree dance, check frequency. check spectrum, check phase. relate to substance.

Possible alternate Hypothesis: That positive-going Quark packets are pulled into Inverse space and held there, under a blanket of an evenly charged Quark zone (a kind of zero space DMZ). Causing inflation of universe.

Galaxies are the detritus that is caught surrounding “black holes” - which show the sponge-like fabric of how the universe appears to us; seeing that space seems a glue that is both positive-going (spacial) and inversely-going (the opposite of spacial) at the same time and from all perspectives (we might endeavor). The essence of reality is the true nature of what we can think of as this quality to “space”.
The universe has contracted and created these black-hole entities around which the ‘stuff’ we see has accumulated - and also where positively-going space is pushing and competing to form a spacial pressure.

Therefore a math of gravity can be placed based on the total amount of material in a given area and the total amount of object mass; - for these show the positive and negative spacial potential that is the only interacting considerations. All other considerations are ancillary and should be addendum.

Examine a notion where the dimensions are subtracted from one or more of each other - to talk about an inferred inverse (for present-day math lovers).

Examine light from a viewpoint of spatial interaction. If waves are alternatively, “electronic” and “magnetic” and the troughs of each are inverse - and become present in inverse space; examine also that waves expand spherically from a place (or time) of origin.

If we draw a dimensional horizon, it can only have meaning if it suggests perpendicular travel; - which necessarily creates the second dimension. This line, however suggests an exponent of size.
This notion asks that spacial dimension be attached to size.

Bigger things are seen. Radiation is small. Radiation is dimensional. Name the dimensionality of light. Name the travel of the dimensionality of light. What is the spatial dimensionality of reflection?

There may be well be dimensional ‘storms’.
If general relativity describes geometry, its mechanics may also be used as a description of dimensional characteristic. An established description of the trajectories of subatomic particles, taken in terms of dimension alone may help describe dimensional nature.

Another: if a volume of inverse (space) has enough positively-going aspects (our mass) to push them out from itself, it might be that a further, positively-going aspect has exploded away from the inverse; and from which, our “mass” sees as going negative from it’s wholesale retreat.
It has left away from the inverse volume, creating the tension of inverse and anti-inverse (positively-going aspect), where the speed of its retreat creates a negative pressure to the relatively small “massive” or baryonic elements we see as our universe. We would exist, perhaps, as a temporary although seemingly evenly tensed protuberances between the larger inverse and anti-inverse aspects, retreating from each other.

The questions about the universe may end up being resolved into considerations of dimension.

Firstly, xyz is preposterous - other than as originating from a simpleton’s view, of course, and then having mathematics built around it. -The math being perfectly fine, etc. (2+2 is fine as well)
However, there may be a dimensional characteristic which will be inherent, at least for a human point-of-view (as opposed to an infinite dimensionality - even though dimension itself may be simply human ignorance). 

March 20, 2012:
For the last few years, I have considered an abstract where positively going space (that of spaciousness) should be in balance with a negatively going “inverse space”. - That objects of baryonic mass are storms of differentiated space - or differentiations of force caught or created between these potentials and as a result of them. That every direction should see a fulcrum of a point ZERO between these absolute potentials of positively going space and inversely going space.
However, the idea that a point of ZERO, arbitrating between extremes, might then evoke a universe made up of contiguous points of ZERO absolutely; - where no space would exist, other than as an illusion created by the brain - which should be the case if there is a point of absolute ZERO space, then becomes dubious.

Now, I am thinking however that both positively going space and inversely going space are constant potentials of the same contexture and that no point of ZERO may be found  - or found to be a normally occurring feature. This still allows an inversely going space as an integral aspect of reality; and, separately, it also still allows consideration that every perceived point should act as a dimensional crossroads.

Dimension may be lines of perspective, where dynamics of space may simply bring states of equilibrium; dimension, being then illusionary.

Point ZERO provides an inferred outside potential (ala envelope theory) - which is also improbable for a truly big picture. Regardless, our holding the notion of zero is no more problematic than any of the abstracts or math contrivances - all being false.
Human beings, unfortunately, become confused with perspective - their seemingly insurmountable addiction. Nature is not human thought, is forever outside human thought.
Traps can be avoided by allowing oneself the freedom to set aside comfortable methodology.

Write article portraying “energy” as an abstract or solely fictional perspective

On human time: apply the math-notion of “zero” being non-existent (no such number) and numbers attached to a constant (c).  Metaphorically, numbers recede from human consciousness to the far-flung “constant” .

Therefore: Ratios to/or from the speed of light allows us to place ourselves in respect of the speed of light. We are on the earth, spinning about the sun, spinning about the galaxies, etc. where we then find a common seat with respect of the speed of light. As there is no “zero” number in this system, our calculated position defines the exact number or field floor where the orientation can then become established.

Light to matter. Check full range of radiation and potentials for encoding/decoding entities.

Present math can be largely retained whole establishing positive and negative spatial “Rails”; - which are infinities and possibly then useful as true constants.

On your play-field, there is no ground under your feet. Am endless universe extends in all directions of both the infinitely small and infinitely large - and both are the qualitatively the same.

All anti-nodes are in tension from the full spectrum of nodal harmonics.

That is: Full spectrum harmonics pull from single nodes, their prime ratios are defined by the distribution of nodes.

Since spatiality is as much inverse to obverse, a sum of the squares of half-life of all the elements (themselves simply knotted spacial entities), should provide a view of the origins and end of the time envelope.

Adapt for a study, my old time-travel device for space-travel through negative space.

If space goes out, never-ending, it goes “in” never-ending. Therefore all aspects are entirely perspective of human minds.
Therefore, every object has dynamic dimensional direction from and to every point providing observation.
This may reveal why light seemingly must expand from every point for observable reflection.

note to Tom:
No - I have begun to see that my idea that space becomes inverse below the point that we have normally imagined to be a point of zero is, of course just a matter of perspective and that as space would appear to ‘go out’ - to expand away from us infinitely; it would also appear -from my work- to go in - past that point of zero-space (the place where present physics, string theory, etc keeps trying to stitch into some underlying base theory), infinitely.

As you know, my thoughts have been that ‘particles’ are wholly mini storms of differentiated space and that to look at particles and atoms is to look, from our perspective, at what is seen to be held or pushed at us from the rest of its aspects from inverse space or, if you will, from their inverse entities (but which are not divorced from inverse space. That is: made up of the inverse of those entities).

However, if space goes ‘out’ forever and ‘in’ forever and things are only half seen by us, we are in a kind of elevator shaft with infinitely less space descending away from us in all directions. Then of course, what we have been considering ‘the universe’ is extremely partial and appreciations derived only from perspective.

This might mean that, as we (atoms, galaxies) are products of differentiating space, everything we know of and our perspective of it, every aspect of it, down to every little point, each of which would act like a cross-roads between dimensions (which stretch away from each point infinitely).

I thought it might be comparable from our perspective to the way light appears. If you look at something, you see a little point of one side of the object, from where ever your eye is in the room. Light must be leaving every point of all objects that we look at, into all directions - from every point on the surface.

So when I started to think about from where that light might be coming, considering the total dimensionality in which these objects are sitting and how light and radiation may be generated and transmitted, it was kind of nifty.

If space recedes down past points of zero, in all directions fr0m all points, it confines our perceptions to perspective which creates for us the illusion of a viable spacial reality. There may be no “space” as we have thought of it at all but for our illusion.


We can see spacial storms at the level of particles - so we are made of and a product of spacial storms.
What is the reality of this stuff? Perhaps atoms, planets, etc show the direction of dimensionality, that it is dimensionality that is curved and in a fight in the massive objects we see.

examine what happens within substances when exposed to radiation / light; - what happens to reflected light and to absorbed light - in the substances themselves.

A coordinate system must sit against relative gravity and a perpendicularity of G as a function of trajectory. -This places curvature of space along travel/or time. c anchors rate of acceleration.