# Time and the Universe. The Math, Code and the Physical of Time.

All Free, No Registration, No Ads, No Nothing (Isn't that something?). Read a thought, think a lifetime.

Theory updated: March 19, 2019. Section: Gravity.

Page index: | Theory | Universe Thoughts | My Other Sites |

To the best of my knowledge, I, Eleftherios Karagiannis (sounds like its spelled), created all the material on this website. No one else has any rights to it. I reserve all my rights under all laws. You may share if you agree to accept only thoughts in return. Copy, save, change if you wish. It's better to educate than humiliate, especially during an argument. If I can't be the best, inspiring another to be the best they can is the next best thing, if not the best of all.

No ads, cookies, pictures, texts, alerts, likes, spam, registration, etc, etc.

If any words are linked with popup ads, you have Adware. Not from this website, search on how to remove from your browser, if you choose.

This is not a business or for profit, I just like to learn and this helps my memory, which is not so good, except for some things, which is weird. Great, another question, I needed one more.

Don't believe just because someone tells you. Try to answer a question just to yourself.

Please read cautiously, I talk about eternity and other subjects that make me dizzy. When it does, I stop and do something, helping myself or another brings me back to reality, reminding me life is more than thinking. This is just my best understanding of what time is.

You have my permission to pick up where I left off and use any or all of my theory in your theory, you do not need my permission.

Back To Index

## My Little Dirty Rag Theory

3,6,9? 1,2,3. One line, one circle twisted, 1=3 and 3=1. ....1+1, 1+2, 1+3, 3+1, 3+2, 3+3, 6+1, 6+2, 6+3, 9+1, 9+2, 9+3, 12+1, 12+2, 12+3, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3,12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3=1. Zero and one, again....

An instant: 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3. Two different points, one side adding the other side subtracting at the same time in a loop equals 1. The first three, 2, 3, 4 equals 9. The second three, 3, 2, 1 equals 6. 4 is next to 3 and 2 is next to 1, 1=1. (1+1)-(4-3)=1, (1+2)-(4-2)=1, (1+3)-(4-1)=1.

What do 3, 6, 9 describe? A claim of great secrets and nothing else, numbers do not describe numbers, they describe something, preferably physical and measurable a fact math can describe. Until those numbers have meaning, I would not call what I did above science, although I did have fun and learn about more than one thing.

In discovering the universe, science is disagreeing, many can defeat one, the only problem with facts, is not the number of times that it can be proven right, that number is irrelevant, the only relevant number is one, the one possibility that proves that fact wrong, the only problem with facts, one can defeat many, disagreeing is science, in discovering the universe.

Perception and reality, a difference, three in a room, each asks how many you see, answers the same, two, perception proves it, fact, proven in reality, in a room three, a difference, reality and perception.

Angle exact same, if I am at the top, it is a decline. If I am at the bottom, it is an incline. If I was at the middle, it is a declining incline and an inclining decline, remove my perception, and reality proves both are exactly the same, no difference, same exact angle.

One cell splits into two, what is the math equation? Zero plus two equals two, one plus one equals two, or one equals two? One equals two. That describes a distance in time, the beginning, one cell, and the end, two cells. There is double the amount of matter and space occupied in distance. One possibility or one point in space changed into two possibilities occupying two points in space, or one equals two.

Two cells, one enters the other, you can see the one cell inside the other, what is the math equation? Zero plus one equals one, one minus one equals zero, or two equals one? Two equals one. One minus one equals empty or none is proven wrong. What about two minus one? That would prove only one cell left, not one inside the other. The difference between perception and reality. Two equals one is describing distance in time, the beginning, two cells or two points in space, and the end, one point in space. Two possibilities or two points in space changed into one or two equals one. When I eat an apple.

Relativity. One plus one or one minus one. There are three relativities to consider, mine, outside the equation, and the two that are inside the equation. What happens in now to them is different than my relativity perceives to be happening; relativity creates different realities, the one viewing and the other two experiencing. Relativity changes math based on which perspective to consider, making the universe confusing. Now or time, is the relativity to consider if I want to understand it. The only way I can, so far, is to imagine now to be the same as my now, as if the universe is a body, and the cells inside me is a universe. This could be taking me down the wrong path, nature honestly tricking me once again. One of many she is best at.

One apple is on the table, what is the math equation? If eaten, at some instant of time the apple changes into empty or none, or one minus one. If I eat the apple, the problem with math is that the apple is literally, factually and in perception empty or none, but in reality, is still something and only changes. The universe cannot recycle empty or none and neither can me. Recycle is conservation of energy. To make better sense, the apple and I each are changed to one possibility. Every something in the universe can be described as one possibility, including time or now itself. In nature, possibilities split or merge, one into two, or two into one.

One possibility occupies one point in space and can split into two separate possibilities occupying two different points in space. The opposite can occur. Two possibilities occupying two different points in space can merge into one possibility occupying one point in space. There is also something that can prevent two possibilities from merging, a border or wall, or not possible. Is splitting always possible? An eternity of nothing would allow it.

What is the difference before an apple is eaten and after? My perception of the apple and my possibility has changed. The apple changes too, all the possibilities that make an apple separate and each change into a new one possibility, or many new one possibilities. If the apple is converted before it is eaten to all the possibilities that it will become, is it still an apple? No, it is not an apple anymore, but all the possibilities that happen after that change, could not be without it being an apple first. It depends what possibilities are being described and when. Can math describe it? Yes.

When and how can an apple subtract itself? It cannot. Another possibility subtracts the apple, like decay or me. Can a possibility subtract itself? I pull one hair from my body, that one hair is me, my DNA, in a separate point in space than me. My one possibility is now two. One minus one describes two possibilities, not one subtracting itself. Math describes change, in time, what was and will be, or what was and is, at different instants. It takes time to count or see change, a difference. The hair was subtracted from my one possibility; I am less one hair than before, or one minus one. Did the hair come from zero or me? Me. Is my one separate hair zero? No. One minus one equals two or one minus one equals not possible, in reality. What is the difference?

A cell can also split itself. A sperm has one DNA possibility. An egg has a different one DNA possibility. At some instant of time, there is an opposite equation, two equals one, at another instant or possibly the same, the new one possibility of the child, one equals two, two identical cells, one DNA possibility, from two, change.

Building Blocks. At the exact instant of time that zero describes empty or none, does time exist anywhere in the universe or not at all? At that same instant, does one building block or any of the material to build one building block exist anywhere in any form in the universe? Or is the first building block empty or none, in other words, does not exist? If something does exist, can it be empty or none? I can see empty or none but can only describe what it is not, not what it is. Can anyone describe what it is?

Balance. One equals one. One minus one equals zero. Two different math equations that claim to describe balance. What is the difference or are they exactly the same? Both equations describe two possibilities and are exactly the same, no difference. Is balance one solution or two? It takes two to balance.

My records show I have one dollar in my bank account. The bank sends me a statement that shows one dollar. One equals one and one minus one equals zero. Two possibilities, no difference, balanced, zero is an answer and cannot have two different correct definitions. If I withdraw the one dollar, the banks math describes the one dollar I am physically holding in my hand as empty or none. If I give you the one dollar, my math describes the one dollar you are physically holding in your hand as empty or none. At no point in time is the one dollar empty or none. Empty or none is wrong.

One glass is on the table. It looks empty or none to my eyes. I can choose to describe it as no water, no orange juice, etc. Empty or none is right. The glass is full of air. Empty or none is wrong. As water is added to the glass, air is subtracted from the glass. As I drink the water, water is being subtracted from the glass and air is added to the glass, water is being added to me and air subtracted outside the glass, four. One equals two, one equals three or one equals four? It is just one event thru times or instants.

Empty or none would be correct if math describes a point in space only. It does not. Math describes a possibility in a point in space, and thru times that possibility can be followed, measured and described by math at almost every possible instant, there is a point it does disappear, beyond our perception and measurements, but it does not change into nothing, but something else, possibly energy. Pick a possibility, pick a point of change, start before the change and follow it thru change and after.

An apple and I, both are possibilities, I eat the apple, math says minus the apple and it no longer exists, the apple however does exist and is added to me, the opposite of minus, the apple and I becoming one, relativity changing math to the opposite extreme, minus to adding and not possible from empty and none.

Is math numbers or letters? The formula for energy is letters and one number. An example of logic explaining what math describes. A code. Is physics math or code?

Is one plus one two trillion? According to math, I am one, and one trillion. The answer is in cells, the question is not. Without cells, am I still one? Math is right and fact, our application proven by the results, mostly, is our understanding of math complete or is there more to it?

I have a package that claims there are twelve eggs inside, I take the eggs out and count them, and the package is right. I have another twelve eggs in the fridge that I need to transport. The second twelve eggs from the fridge will not fit in the package because they are twice as big as the eggs before. Is the package wrong or math? Is math only fact if relative is applied or ignored? The fact is the possibilities changed. The second twelve eggs have met not possible. They need the original package they came in, that would be possible, if I did not throw that package away. Math is right; relative can change to not possible, only when the possibilities change. Different points in time.

Zero plus one equals one. Where did the one come from? Not possible plus one equals one. Where did the one come from? Not possible. What is not possible? Something not part of our perception, the unknown border of a circle, eternal Pi with a limit, the beginning and end, of now the wave called time.

Zero. My rag can have absolute no water. That would be zero; it just means the water is not in the rag, but somewhere else. Zero only works if I ignore the relativity of the water. Zero is balance, reality, with one possibility, now. Zero and one. Light is zero, balance, which is how the speed remains constant.

The Math of Time, the instant of change between what was and will be, described mathematically.

The math of merging, One minus one = one plus one.

The math of splitting, One plus one = one minus one.

The solution of math is one. The solution of logic is two. 2=2, balance in opposites. The left side is two points in space or two possibilities and the right side is one point in space or one possibility.

The Code of Time.

One minus one = not possible.

Not possible plus one = possible, one possibility.

Beneath and above, after one possibility, now reaches not possible, if possible, next = time.

Not possible, if possible, next. That is the only way I can think to describe an event with a beginning and end over and over again. Is there another? Possible, if possible, next. Time is always possible and everything else is possible until it disappears from our reality. Everything started and becomes not possible, eventually, which could be energy, except time, which could be energy, and is possible, always.

One is the minimum and maximum, and math describes what makes one. Relative makes a difference and less, equal or more than one, without it, there is only one. Math describes change, inside the one and the one as a whole. No matter what quantity in our reality, it is inside one universe. One plus one and one minus one describes two possibilities, when those two possibilities merge or split, we call it chance, probability, but I do not believe it is chance, or chance is something different. When I eat the apple, chance has nothing to do with it, the one and only possibility that can happen does, a different result would only occur if the one possibility we each are at each point in now is different, on a relative basis only. Chance should be in front of now, now is one possibility, too late for chance. Chance could determine what is possible and affect it after but before now. Or chance and affect is the same.

The smallest time difference is also the minimum between what different possibilities can exist, for each and every thing. As the time frame expands, more possibilities are added, and the only way to achieve all possibilities may be with eternity, but based on my relativity, all possibilities are limited. What can prove not possible exists?

A small rag I am using to clean can only hold so much water, that possibility is one, every smaller amount including none, is also possible, everything else is not possible, no matter what chance says. Examining the rag, if the smaller I look is eternal, possibilities have a limit and not possible does exist, even in eternity.

If I cut one apple in half, what has changed? The apple cannot be put together again, almost the same as cutting a magnet in half, the very outside has changed to not possible. Is not possible physical, possibly at the point gravity meets space or would it be the surface?

When examining something, the minimum is the smaller I look, eventually, not possible. The maximum is the larger I look, eventually, not possible.

Waves, from the macro to the micro, acting exactly the same, affecting in its wake, created by so many different things, including light, which appears constant, time is a wave between not possible, the maximum and minimum of one possibility. The future is two possibilities, the next point in time, and so on. The future does exist, only in possible possibilities, which can change, based on now. If nothing is there, time is flat, a straight line, at a constant rate the fastest from point A to B. When something is there, time changes to a wave, from the minimum to maximum, the smaller the something is, the smaller the wave, and closer to the rate of now. The larger the something is, the larger the wave and the further from the rate of now. The rate of now stays the same, the wave of now changes and creates the difference between the perception of now, which is slower than the actual rate of now, based on the size of the wave. Speed does not affect the wave unless my size changes. Someone taller and smaller have different size now waves and perceive now different than me, ever so slightly. Only someone my exact size sees now the same as me.

A dust particle creates gravity, a warp in space so tiny, it may help explain how dust can coalesce at all, mix in one more, and gravity starts to grow, add enough to the point and it will explode, and a new star is born, an explosion with a maximum and minimum, after that, not possible takes over, creating a surface, the limit of a border, keeping the energy under its control. The energy eventually starts to run out, gravity collapses on itself, another explosion, not possible no longer in control, the border disappears, and the dust begins to travel, until it meets another possibility's not possible, putting an end to the dust's journey, and the affect and effect of a new journey begins. As an object grows, the maximum stretches space and the minimum is squeezed, the wave gets smaller and smaller until it is the same wave as the singularity and is released into space. What stops it could be the explosion, a change in gravity, or maybe a clotting like our skin, repairing the rip in space, not possible is the line of a border once again, limiting the eternal energy of the singularity itself.

Gravity. No matter how small, it is more than none, creating a warp in space. Gravity bends light, gravity is in and around the earth. Gravity changes the further down or further out I go. It is not static, gravity changes as the something it surrounds changes, with time. Based on an experiment with a little gnome, the further down I go, gravity is lessened, and a mountain creates more gravity than a valley, based on two satellites measuring gravity differences. Gravity is two percent less in low earth orbit than high earth orbit. If gravity is a wave, the smallest wave should be the least gravity and the largest the most. It appears the opposite is true, the smallest wave is the strongest and the largest is the weakest. Time in space is almost flat and at the point space meets gravity, the wave is the smallest and grows as it goes thru the earth and gets smaller again to the point of space being the smallest. Gravity is the wave of time pushing down on the earth trying to get flat again, to its fastest and balanced state. Gravity is a positive force from the relativity of space and time. When a star is made, it is made of many small parts added together. If I measure a small point, gravity would measure nonexistent or weak because it is small. That small point is part of a bigger point of gravity which is all the small points added together, the strongest next to space is probably the maximum small points and the center of gravity is the minimum small points, the weakest. Space is enormous if not eternal and no matter how big we measure, it is still small relative to space as a whole, or we are close to the center of a bigger point of gravity, which is all of space, and that is how space appears none and is not. That could be how gravity bends light. The emptiness in the pattern created at the point space meets gravity will only allow some of the light to get thru; the rest gets pushed around gravity. Induction soldering uses induction heating. When I solder copper pipe, I do not heat the point of entrance for the solder, but the furthest point I want the solder to go, the end point is where I point the flame, the hottest point. When the entrance point is hot enough, but still colder than the end point where the flame is, the solder melts and gets sucked or pulled to the hotter point. Induction heating is the process of heating an electrically conducting object, usually metal, by electromagnetic induction, which is another definition which has more definitions, just a guess. The center of the earth is hotter than space and so is the very end point of gravity and where space begins, and so is the moon and any object that is matter or has mass, no matter how small, another guess. A molten core is not required because of the crushing or pressure on the center of every object and is still hotter than space itself. Does induction heating explain the difference in gravity and mass based on the earth? Is gravity induction heating or exist for that reason? How are they different? Hot air and water rises and cold air and water sinks. Two similar objects, the larger object should be hotter at the center because of pressure; it appears induction heating has a point of failure. Gravity is stronger at my head than my feet, and I weigh less on the earth than in space where I am weightless, the further in space I go I weigh more as gravity strengthens, what is that reason? Consider force and waves assuming earth is pushing outward and space is pushing downward and if not force or waves than what? If colder is attracted to hotter and hotter is attracted to colder then hot air and water rising and cold air and water falling possibly fits, space is colder than the center of the earth, and as far as the center of an object being hotter due to pressure, the larger the object, the surface should be colder the further from the center. When I sit next to a fire, I feel heat, is heat or cold a force? Is it possible the difference between a point of gravity next to a point of no gravity in space is a difference in temperature? For a well to describe gravity correctly, if I fell in that well I would only fall half way, the bottom half of the well would push or pull upward toward the center, the same is true for space bending similar to a bend in a trampoline; neither describes gravity correctly. Gravity is all around and towards the center from all and every point within gravity, until I consider the moon, it appears. It is possible that another's gravity is stronger than the earth's gravity and is moving the moon away instead of towards us. How about centrifugal force? I am leaving point (x) moving towards point (y), the closer to (y) the less I weigh and there is less force, upon reaching (y) my weight and the force is the least, the middle of the earth, if I turned and moved back toward point (x), I gain weight and the force is increased, and point (x) is the greatest weight and force. Was I pushed or pulled and from which point? Of all the forces known or conditions that can be created, which fit that, assuming I just described gravity correctly to begin with? The Curiosity rover measured the gravity of a mountain on Mars, fantastic, and gravity is less with altitude, which contradicts my whole understanding of gravity, not so fantastic, I believe it was the weighing less the further down I go, not true on a mountain. There is less matter at the peak than the base, is my guess. I am also guessing that a valley could have more gravity than a mountain, depending on the matter or mass of that matter, and the further down from the surface is less matter, how can gravity be stronger beneath the surface with less matter? Is it possible the surface is the strongest gravity and not the center? If the center is the strongest, then how can I weigh less with more gravity and less with less gravity? Gravity sure is weird; something is missing, wrong understanding or need new evidence. Gravity is stronger at my head than my feet and gravity lessens with altitude contradict each other, and if they do not and both are right it could be what is missing or one could be wrong, I do not remember where I heard or read the first one. After all that and back to my original guess, the core is pushing outward and space is similar to water in that it has pressure or force from all sides all around, and how a sphere is created. Beneath the surface gravity still exists but if continued the push of the core would overtake and no more gravity or the effects of it and all the material past that point was forced towards space over a long period of time. Weightless in space I do not believe is right, and weight can only be measured with gravity which can change based on the gravity, I weigh less on the moon than on the earth even though I am basically the same and if galaxies are weightless and the only force is from the big bang according to equal and opposite, galaxies should not catch up to each other and galaxies should move at a constant and they do not, they are too far apart for gravity to be the reason, and a possible answer is the big bang did not apply an equal force to all. Things move in all directions because the force was greater than the force of space and I believe that we are in the center point of magnetism and that is the physical of time, but not all of time, and how time moves only forward. Gravity is space stretched creating the difference between it and space, and space still exists deep down into the core, where squeeze is also in play, how it maintains and everything maintains its shape and a point no matter its shape or a point could not be made or maintained. The more space is stretched or squeezed the more or less weight and how gravity gives the appearance of strengthening and weakening and how it changes and how a single point can push and pull at the same time, it is not, and mass is not the cause of gravity only space being different and mass is the cause of that difference but not gravity itself. The tiniest thing also has gravity, it stretches and squeezes space. I hold two objects with different weight one in each hand, I drop them and they hit the ground at almost the same rate, that difference is probably air pressure and how gravity can be considered a constant and for different weight to fall at the same rate is probably the same force, in other words the weight does not matter until weight is measured on the surface or in my hands and that same force is being applied, how is there a difference? Space bending is not a right answer or any other explanation that I have heard, and there is a right answer and reason.

Time dilation. Our universe's now is shared by all the relativities within, and each relativity within has its own now based on its possibilities. Each now is different only relative to each other, not the universe. While on the earth, my now is relatively the same as the earth's now relative to the universe's now. When I leave the earth, the earth and my now are relative to the universe, not each other. Gravity causes time dilation, until I completely leave its affect. Relative to my point on the surface, one mile down or in a plane in the sky, my now is different than my point on the surface, because of gravity and our application of relative. The possibilities change. Imagine two cells in my body, their now's separate from each other and relative to my now. If one enters the other, the one inside is relatively the same as the other, relative to my now. A cell outside my body is not relative to my now until it is in my body. Gravity is the same as a cell entering a body, relative to time in possibilities. The atomic clocks difference is a measurement of change in gravity, the difference in the wave of time. Time dilation, the scientific definition is different than what I wrote; my age on the earth does not change the same relative to being in a space ship traveling thru space at a faster rate. The faster I travel thru space I age slower than on the earth. The belief is that time changes, that is incorrect, the difference is the rate of change, a difference in math and a wave or waves, that is how I change the same on a space ship or appear to.

Space itself is the not possible and every something is a possibility opposite of it. The wave of now is smaller than a light wave and our instruments cannot measure beyond the smallest or the largest part of a light wave. Not possible is more than just perception, it creates a limit. Every something's wave pattern is in the same direction, opposite space and time. The direction of the wave matters, like the pushing or pulling of magnetism, creating the border or wall that prevents two something's from going thru each other. I am stretching space, in the stretched space of the earth, and from the relativity of the universe, I am in the earth's body, the same as cells stretch space inside of me, possibilities can exist within each other. There is no math of nothing, empty or none. Math cannot describe it. It does not prove that nothing, empty or none is not part of the universe, only that math cannot describe it. If space is empty or none, time still exists there making space something, always.

If the universe has an end, what is on the other side? Not possible, after that, an eternal singularity that is now, dark energy. The big bang was a point in the eternal singularity, and possibly created a limited multiverse or an eternal multiverse each with limits.

If eternity has a starting point, eternity has a border, an end in the beginning, making eternity limited. Can eternity have a beginning or not? If balance is right, not that I can see, once again, maybe, logic is a funny thing. If opposites are true, balance should be balanced with imbalance, logically, right? Is it possible to have imbalance within balance when relative is applied, but remains balanced as a whole? Of course, there is another opposite, imbalance is balanced with balance. Which one, both are the same, or is it something else? Did I just enter circular logic? Break it down to possibilities and try again, I will save that for another day. Eternity makes me dizzy, the most.

Does Pi describe outside the circle? Imagine an eternity of nothing. Add one perfect circle. Inside the circle and the border each have limits, but outside the circle is still an eternity of nothing. Pi is describing eternity with a circle in it, borders within eternity. Eternity did not have a starting point, the circle did. What if I added a square instead of a circle? Never touching the inside of a border makes sense if that is possible, but the circle is not eternal, even though Pi claims that it may be. When a perfect circle's final two point touch, the beginning and end, Pi is created, spinning the circle or the calculation of Pi is within the border and moving and changing in number and distance within the border of the circle. Pi is magnetism or the math that creates magnetism and creates time within it or its border or possibly both. The inside shapes the outside and what happens outside can affect the inside, but the inside still shapes the final result of the whole shape itself, not just the outside. Even before the first circle could have a beginning, time must have existed before, when there was only nothing, apply time to Pi and what do we find? I looked up Pi, almost everything on that page, math, words and ideas, I have never heard of or considered, and it would take me multiple lifetimes to even begin to understand, except for one thing, a quote from Newton (the only reason I picked an apple) "I am ashamed to tell you how many figures I carried these computations, having no other business at the time". That I have lived, but I have no shame, because of it, I learned, even wrong, a shame would be not learning, in my opinion. I assume Pi is no two numbers next to each other are the same and that does not stop no matter how many decimal places it goes, I hope that is right. Pick any number in Pi, that one number requires at least one instant of time and when that one number is created and ended is now, there can only be that one number and none other or a difference could not be achieved. That one number cannot be divided, otherwise the next number in Pi would never be, and it does, possibly proving now does have a beginning and end or Pi would never change, have motion (if it does), distance or difference. If it does take multiple instants to create one number, then those multiple instants happen in between one number and the next, but there is a limit (possibly the code), the first number (or previous if not the first) and the next number should prove that. I do not mean the code is separate from now, each part of the code demands at least one instant and is not the past or the future, but each instant is now itself.

Now is eternal, no begging or end, no borders, all possibilities possible, time should be stuck in eternity and change should not be possible. Not possible after minimum and maximum creates a beginning and end, borders, limited.

What could change the singularity into a bang? Without time, math and change, how can it be possible? One is an external affect. Any others?

If the big bang was the beginning of all, then math did not exist before, it was nothing, not a singularity, that would be one, proving math did exist before, and the big bang was not the beginning. The singularity still exists and is the source of energy and time for our universe. Math can describe energy, and therefore the singularity, more proof math existed before the big bang, unless that math equation or the solution is not possible. If I was frozen to the point my time stops, a border of not possible would stop change, but time still changes outside all around me, the same would happen if our universe was frozen, time exists outside of it, eventually, time affects all and change happens. Chance?

Time and math existed before our big bang; it would allow our big bang to have a beginning. Math and time also have a limit in our universe, time is possibilities, when there are none, there is no time like in our reality, time only exists in distance. Math has the limit of possible, math cannot solve not possible. Energy and math determine what is possible.

Each point in space can only be a maximum and minimum of one possibility, not possible is all around us, and looks like nothing. When I clap my hands, not possible is right in front of my eyes, between my hands, I hear the gravity around both my hands squeeze not possible, or the direction of the wave creates a wall and stops my hands going thru each other. Each relativity travels thru space differently based on its one possibility, which changes with time and affects. Gravity is where time dilation begins and is where possibilities begin its affects. Possibilities can also be affected in other ways, such as communication, experience, my own thought within myself and I can physically create and change possibilities as well.

Can nothing be considered one possibility? Nothing is eternal, because there are no borders, no different than Pi or eternity, in opposite, eternity with borders.

The relativity of my thought is my perception of now, my reality, light and distance, which is slower than the now of the universe, which is everywhere at once in or around nothing at every point, I can measure, experience and see points, and math proves them. How small makes a point? How big makes a point? What is the biggest smallest point or the smallest biggest point, does either make sense, or both? The biggest point is the universe or what all universes are inside which is one possibility, and the smallest point which is one possibility. The smallest point has size, otherwise size would be none. The smallest point is made of two, one of the two could exist in reality and the other not, or if they spin, they rotate into and out of reality, while one is in reality, the other is the opposite.

What is distance? A measurement of something in nothing. If I was in a five foot square box and wanted to measure a ten foot straight line, how could I unless nothing was in my way? I cannot. If I hold my hands out, distance is not my hands, but the space in between. Distance can be nothing, even in a void, if the void has conciseness. Thought itself is distance, a difference. Space is a void. What is the distance between the earth and the moon? What is being measured? A void.

The astronaut traveling at light speed that returns in the future, the only possibility is to travel faster than light to sync their now with the earth. Not possible for mass, is now mass?

Is energy mass? If energy is now, no, because it is faster than light, if that fact is right. Now is faster than light because light takes time to get to us. If I was in a point in space with no light, time still exists, I change, and light is not change, light shows me the data of change. There is an all now, and what I see, is all now's history finally catching up to me. The past is what now was, and the future is what now will be.

The eternal singularity, dark energy, is the universe's now, which is faster than light, and all matter is bound to the limit of light, including our instruments and sight. Dark energy is now and distance, possibilities. Dark energy is negative, energy of mass is positive. Less than none is not possible in our reality. Negative only exists because we apply relative. Applied to dark energy gives the real existence of negative or opposite within our universe.

As our universe's possibilities play out, not possible or possibilities could be growing, expanding our universe faster. The expansion could reach not possible or all possibilities. What happens next?

Dark reality. One is always made of two, at a minimum, proven by balance and math, to name two. The singularity is energy that is straight, no borders, and eternal. Our reality, our perception, is split but still connected to the singularity, and our universe is still inside of it, surrounded by a circle of not possible, bigger and smaller. There is a line of not possible, a border, that separates our reality, and for a lack of any term I know, dark reality, or opposite. The opposite makes exactly one, between reality and dark reality; reality is four thirds, and only two possibilities exist, take one third from another or leave two thirds behind. I am guessing both, when I consume or absorb energy and two thirds behind because one is always made of at least two. Strings could be bouncing off not possible, being affected by dark reality; reality could also be affecting the strings, two points in the same instant of time. The strings could be circles between reality and dark reality, giving and taking possibilities. The symbol of eternity. ∞

Reality. Reality is four thirds, dark reality is two thirds. When something occupies space, only part of space is stretched and two thirds remains flat and remains in every something no matter where in space that something is. That is how time within every something remains the same, no matter how fast or slow it goes. The only way to travel at the rate of now is to be flat. Time itself is not exactly flat, it is energy wrapped around nothing, and time is the flattest and the fastest rate, the wave of now creates the difference in perception. The difference in perception between stopped and constant is change. If I could see at the rate of now, change would be observed, just slower, my wave of now would be the smallest; I still change the same because time has not changed. The size of my wave determines my perception of now, even light has a now, a wave larger than the fastest now, and possibilities that change. The speed I travel thru space does not change time. Like standing next to a moving train, as I speed up, my perception of the trains speed slows down, but not the train, it stays the same speed and in no way does the train change, just me. On the earth, I have the earth's speed that she travels thru space as zero or stopped, she is not. Everything in space remains relatively the same speed for a very long time. When I leave the earth, everything is not changing, just me. They are like fans all along the track cheering me on, standing and clapping. As I speed up, everything gets more blurry, and my perception is only tricking me.

What is the rate of now? If the calculation of the astronaut traveling at light speed is correct, how much faster to sync their now, should be the rate of now, but speed relies on relative, creating it depends; without it, possibilities are left. If time was frozen, what would be is the one possibility, of each and every thing.

Time travel would be before or after now, which does not exist, now is eternal and unless you can pass eternity, there is only now, the past is written in light, the future in possibilities, previous or fast forward does not appear to be part of the code, making now move only forward, one possibility at a time, maybe, maybe not, either way, one of those four is right. Now is faster than my perception, the speed of light, the limit for mass, which I am. The wave of all mass is bigger than a light wave, creating the limit.

Black Holes. Time changing in a black hole is the same as time changing in water, it does not. Gravity is changing in a black hole, not time. Time in a black hole is the same as time outside of it. Gravity is a warp in space and gravity in a black hole is warping everything inside of it, including light. The slowest I can travel is stopped, the fastest is light, limits, faster still is time, as long as I am at the rate of now or slower, time does not change, just the rate I travel thru space, relative to now, stopped or something else. The wave in a black hole is small, being squeezed to the point that we cannot see light; the wave is smaller than a light wave. A black hole is spinning faster than light but slower than now, the smaller the wave the closer to the rate of time or now. If the wave is squeezed to the same wave as the singularity, the singularity is released into space, temporarily.

Quantum entanglement is a connection thru empty or none in dark reality; it does not happen all the time because dark reality is not always empty, or is not possible until it is, it disappears because it is now, light is slower, and disappears right before my eyes. The changing of the answer could be because the universe does not stop changing and time could be one instance faster than our perception, or more. The collapsing of a wave when viewed may be because I can only view one point of the wave and not the whole wave itself. When I see a light wave, I can only see part of the wave at once, the wave is still there and does not collapse, until I try to see the part of the wave that I cannot. Quantum entanglement could flow one way and the opposite in dark reality. Magnetism could show the path to connection. I saw an experiment using sound waves under a trampoline with marbles or balls on it. The sound waves would make the balls bounce around and at certain frequencies the balls would connect to make geometric patterns with gaps or emptiness in between. I believe those are the patterns of matter or the wall of matter that stops two things from going thru each other. It is also how some things can go thru matter like it is not there, if small enough at every point, it will fit in the emptiness between each shape. It appears the sound waves are matching other waves of the earth and space. That could also be how quantum entanglement works. The waves from both ends match to form a pattern or wall around them and that wall extend thru the emptiness of space between the two ends. I am not sure how to get an opposite answer from that but it could be the two different waves from each point and the way they connect?

Force. I am pushing you and you I, both our forces are positive. If pushing or moving forward is a positive force and pulling or moving backward is a negative force and I turn my back to you and pull while you are pushing, you are a positive force moving forward and I am a negative force moving forward. Pulling is a positive force, more than none, I cannot produce less than none force. Whether pushing, pulling, forward or backward, my force is always positive. If you push me against a wall, when I hit the wall, my force is positive. I can never hit a wall with negative force, no matter what, even if I pull that wall apart. One table, two people on opposite sides, you and I, and one object in the middle. I push and pull it back to the middle. You pull and push it back to the middle. The force is the same; the only difference is the perception, which is not a force at all. If I am pushing you with ten pounds of force and you are pushing me with twelve pounds of force, I am minus two and you are plus two. That only describes the difference, not what we are. If I am pulling you with ten pounds of force and you are pushing me with one pound of force, am I a negative or positive force? Oops. There is no such thing as negative force, less than none, only positive, more than none, at least in our reality.

Big Bang. To have balance, an explosion would have to have a maximum and minimum. Not possible allows balance to happen. If the Big Bang is right, the maximum will continue for eternity and the minimum would eventually collide into itself, no balance. Balance exists in reality. Is the big bang right? The minimum would squeeze the wave to the same as the singularity, eventually, the singularity would be let out. A black hole is far smaller than the universe and can create the same wave as the singularity, if the big bang is right, there would only be a singularity and nothing else. There could not be a wave bigger than the singularity. I believe the big bang is wrong. If there was a big bang, it is the point in eternity that energy separated and surrounded nothing, energy created when there was none before, not at a single point in space, but at the same instant in all eternity and at every possible point in eternity. Energy and nothing are opposites that create one possibility, time as it is today. Time existed before the big bang in the eternal distance of nothing, and the big bang is the one possibility in eternity that took time to become possible, before time was more than distance like today. Knowledge takes time to learn, like DNA.

What does algebra describe? The answer can be positive or negative, and less than none does not exist in our reality. I cannot think of anything negative, less than none, in reality when relative is not applied. Unless it is debt. The negative in algebra could be describing the part of the universe we do not see. Considering nature only, nothing human made, is the negative the wrong answer? It is possible that negative only exists because of relative and less than none does not exist in the universe. Does nature apply algebra?

Magnetism. There is only one kind of magnetism, one we cannot measure, energy that is faster than light, natural, but can measure its effects, and the other, the slower energy, electromagnetism. In reality, both are the same. Two separate parts of the universe, dark reality and reality, one possibility that proves both. Magnetism is space and time, the two points in time, two circles of energy wrapped around nothing, or one circle twisted and bent and the stretching and squeezing of space changes the shapes in nothing between each point, the same made different based on the shape and nothing is time in distance. It also is how two things cannot go thru each other. Of all the energies, there is only one I can think of that does not require change, magnetism. The material stays the same; it is the singularity or a part of it. Is it Pi? The same force in opposite directions eventually flowing in one direction, right thru the middle, and that one direction is the moving forward of time.

The point that is believed the big bang occurred is actually a point of magnetism. We are being pushed from that point, including light, and if we could see beyond that point, we would see objects pulled to that point, explaining how everything is coming from that point. The furthest image that is seen is all the objects ripped apart when they entered that point. An explanation that solves eternity was once a single point, making eternity limited, which proves itself wrong. True eternity has no borders, like nothing. The point of magnetism is the strongest, or the fastest, the further away it weakens, or slows until it turns back to the point. It is the same as a tiny magnet on my kitchen table. The pulling side speeds up as it gets closer to the point. The pushing is the strongest at the point and weakens further away to the point of stop. It is possible we are being pulled to a different point of magnetism or will eventually be pulled back to the original point. The furthest image seen is not the beginning, but faster than light past that point. We are traveling slower than light thru space, the light that is at the point of the big bang should have passed us and should not be there, only emptiness. Background radiation is how it is not empty. Black holes do not have background radiation. If we could see the other side of the point of the big bang, it is a black hole. If we could see the other side of a black hole there is background radiation. From the point of the big bang to every black hole, each a universe of its own; a multiverse, time is quantum entangled to each. When objects enter a black hole and the energy is released back into space is because there is a border, not possible, probably spinning opposite just on the other side and will not allow it to enter the universe on the other side. Background radiation. At our point of the big bang, if the black hole stops feeding, it probably cools down, but there still is a core from the collapsed star and probably stays hot, at least I think there is still a core, maybe it changed into energy, same as the singularity? That would fit quantum entanglement, based on my understanding, next to none. I think the event horizon gives that answer or gravity.

The speed of magnetism may be constant at all points and I may have been tricked (or tricked myself, shocker). Like light bending in water is just perception or light going thru a glass is bouncing within the glass giving the appearance of traveling slower, so I have read. I saw an animation of two lines each line with one dot. The bottom line was straight and the top line wavy, each dot traveled at the same speed. The straight line dot would eventually pass the top wavy line dot giving the appearance of different speeds, but they were the same speed. Magnetism or time, if not the same, could work like that and be constant and just give the appearance of variance or difference. Light is an electromagnetic wave. It is why I believe time is eternal, if time is limited or wrapped back onto itself like the animation, the future could exist before the past, can the universe work like that, if so, how? If time is eternal, even in the animation, a perception of time difference would be observed, but which point is where at any instant or any instant before or after is irrelevant to time, only to the observer or what they choose. Which fits the universe more accurately?

Based on what I have read, the big bang occurred thirteen point seven two billion years ago. And there is an image to prove it. The WMAP data is an image of the early universe, in other words, we are in that image. We are seeing the universe at its beginning. For that too be true, we must be traveling faster than light for us to see the beginning before that light could reach us. Of course, that proves itself wrong. We are traveling slower than light, and could not possibly just be seeing the beginning. That image came long after the beginning and is probably still happening today. When a pilot creates a sonic boom, they have to slow down to hear the boom. They are not hearing the boom at the point of its creation, time has moved on and so did the sound wave. If there was a point that everything traveled faster than light, what slowed it down? Everything we see in the universe is after it was. There are stars we see that are no longer there. Except the point of the big bang, the only light that we see before everything was. How can that be right?

Draw a point, the point of the big bang. Draw two lines, the speed of light and the speed of everything that made the earth. Extend both lines thirteen point seven two billion years. If done correctly, that should show us when we are seeing. The problem with that are two. The earth is not time and the speed of light is not time, only our perception of it. Quantum entanglement may give the correct answer, if possible. The problem with quantum entanglement is an instant connection and distance is irrelevant, like cells connected in my body, our time is one, but each cell has its own time connected to the singularity, where the energy comes from and goes to.

Why does there have to be a bang? Force? Magnetism has force, no bang required, maybe.

None then one, one line, a perfect circle achieves Pi. Two, twist and one equals two and two equals one, the symbol of eternity and magnetism with a point in the middle. Three, a triangle, bend the twisted circle, one angle is made, either cut to mirror the image, like a fractal, or add another, a second circle. The triangle complete, a square can now be made. Does stretching and squeezing make all other possible shapes? If I was true eternity would I consider myself none? No. I applied the math of me and chose to ignore true eternity and begin with none.

An apple is mass, when I eat it, mass is changed into energy and other things. Mass into energy. I plant a seed, add water, the seed grows in mass, water is energy changed into mass. Energy into mass. Is water mass and energy, like light are a wave and a particle? What is the difference between energy and mass? Is it temperature, speed or the size of the wave? What else? An apple does have mass and is also matter. Matter changes into energy and energy into matter. Matter creates mass and gravity. What are the equations? Energy waves are the smallest and fastest and matter is larger and colder, space being the coldest. Nothing does not have a temperature or it should not.

The earth emits waves, or an energy or now wave opposite space and time. Is it possible that one or both waves at a certain point are stretched taller to the point that one wave line touches the next creating the border, wall or not possible? If the waves were smaller they would be flatter, not sure if flat makes a wall, but maybe. The closer or smaller we look it gets bumpy. Two walls, ceiling and floor, borders, maximum and minimum.

The center of the Earth is pushing outward; it is the smallest, strongest and the hottest wave. Time in space is the smallest wave and the strongest. There is a contradiction, space is cold, and how can that be? The largest wave is the coldest, things appear slower, relative to a smaller wave which is hotter and things appear faster. Space is two, and our reality is the four thirds part, the larger wave, and the two thirds part is the smaller wave and the hottest, dark reality. That is how space is cold, the part we can see, so to speak, and hot, the part we cannot see, like magnetism, we can only measure the effects, in space only the cold part. Time is one wave, split into two, the smallest and the largest, minimum and maximum, the singularity itself, and matter is somewhere in between.

Supersolid. A solid that acts like a superfluid at the same time. There is no resistance, friction. It crawls up an uncovered container because of the earth, the waves she creates. In a superfluid atoms hop around without resistance. An atom creates gravity, at the very edge it is what maintains the solid structure or mass and the emptiness between each shape of the pattern the waves create is the right size for the atoms to move around as if nothing is in their way, because there is not. This only makes sense if the very edge of gravity is frictionless. When an object enters the earth's gravity, does friction begin at the start point or after the part of gravity that bends light? When two atoms get too close to each other, their gravities interact and friction occurs. The closer they get the more friction and more resistance. The edge of gravity is frictionless and because of two different possibilities gravity and at the right distance between, the frictionless part acts like matter, even though it is not. The very outside of the supersolid interacts with another possibility, like a table or container, their gravity is different than inside the supersolid and friction is created between the two. The two bell curves thought helped me see this. Chance? When two magnets are put together and the closer they get the more they push or resist, can friction be measured? What else can resistance be?

Depending on size, force and the configuration or shape and the emptiness in between, and possibly others, the earth wave or waves can affect and push towards space, space wave or waves can affect and push down towards the earth. Which is smaller and larger or stronger and weaker? Even the pull side of magnetism is being pushed starting from the center based on a diagram of a single point of magnetism.

Quantum Universe. The experiment with the sound under the trampoline with balls on top, the frequencies that do not form shapes are the randomness in the quantum. The frequencies that do form shapes are the fractals of reality. If we are in a black hole, quantum is not only smaller but bigger; it is the small of the universe outside our black hole. The different frequencies could possibly be evidence of a multiverse, our reality only being one of those frequencies that creates fractals of shapes, and other universes being the rest. Or our universe has all those frequencies and so do the rest, smaller and bigger on a relative basis but the waves are the same.

My definition of an instant in time is now. Now is an instant in time and can only be defined as one, not more and not less, unless relative is applied, making one two. Now is the only instant in time that we experience or perceive, our reality, and now does not exist in the past or the future. There is only now, the past is what now was and the future is what now will (or possibly can) be. I can only describe the past and the future as an instant in time or many instants of time to form an event, but the time we experience in reality, the instant, is not the past or the future, only now. The past proves there are different instants in time and can be made up of many instants in time if I choose. The future cannot be proven only possibly predicted. One piece of evidence is evolution.

How can time begin unless it always existed? It must have, time must exist before there is a beginning and continues to exist even after an end, and otherwise neither and everything in between could not be to begin with. When I choose the beginning, I am choosing an instant in time, there is no beginning without time and even after the end time moves on. Consider a hundred yard dash. The runners line up and the starter starts with ready, set then go, go is the beginning or what we choose the beginning to be, but time does not start at go unless I choose to ignore ready and set. There is a runner who crosses the finish line first but the race does not end until the last runner finishes the race. Sometimes the first is too close to call and we go back in time to investigate, time still exists even after the end or we could not do that, we just choose to ignore all the other times and only focus on a limited event. Apply relative and there time was or possibly can be. Consider a stop watch; the beginning is the pushing of the button and the pointer starting to move is one, the difference between the beginning and one. Also, the end is the pushing of the button and ten is the last number the pointer is showing, the difference between ten and the end. Did I just prove myself wrong? The button has to be pushed before ten is reached. I am honestly confused; it felt right, for a while. I like this stop watch example because perception has nothing to do with it, just physical movement and time applied, I just wish I could understand it. This is my best attempt: My problem may be the pushing of the button itself, so I am going to choose to ignore it. Before movement or motion there was none and one is the first movement or motion, the difference. There is a difference between ten and the end because ten is the last movement or motion and then none, the difference, otherwise it would be pointing at eleven. Makes sense to me, for now....

My event with a beginning and end is whole numbers one thru ten. One is after none, the beginning and ten is the last number before the end, where none is reached, and each number is an instant in time. If I choose ten, I can claim there is only ten and nine and the end cannot exist with ten, the same would be true if I chose one, before the beginning and two cannot exist with one, otherwise there would be no difference and there is. But to claim that proves an instant is no time, no motion or no change is correct only if I choose to ignore everything else. The fact is I could not get to ten without the other whole numbers happening first and cannot get to the end without ten, time must exist even in an instant, after all, I described the whole event from the beginning, the end and everything in between before I even chose the number ten. Let's consider just ten for a moment, I can choose to divide ten in half, five and five, but I cannot claim an instant of time is now halved to five unless I choose to ignore the other five. In reality, no matter how I choose to divide, it can only be ten and nothing else. In the beginning I claimed whole numbers, not a fraction thereof, and by choosing to divide a whole number I am contradicting or proving myself wrong because I stated only whole numbers to begin with.

I have two pairs of dice. I hold one pair in each hand and roll them at approximately the same time. One pair stops first and the second pair keeps rolling. I can choose the first pair that stopped and claim there is no time because there is no change, motion or difference, but only if I ignore the second pair still rolling, and everything else, after all, the dice even when stopped could be experiencing decay or change that I cannot see or measure. Even after the second pair stops, my perception and brain takes more time to process the result. If I leave before the second pair stops rolling, my perception of the event is irrelevant, time can and does exist without me, but I cannot exist without time. Time affects me and I cannot affect time, only how I choose to perceive. The trick is to find time without perception or choice at least that is what I believe.

Is the smaller I look eternal? I have a glass of water, the water is not eternal. For simplicity sake, assume one drop of water is one H2o. If I divide the water in the glass by half each time, it is not eternal. Eventually there will be two H2o's (in a perfect scenario, I think) and when I divide those by half there will be one H2o, applying ignoring the other H2o of course. When I divide that one H2o by half it is no longer a drop of water, but something else. Even if I do that to one H, it is no longer H, but something else. Eventually, I am guessing we will find the same energy that everything is made of, magnetism. Now we can divide the energy for eternity, no, just like the drop of water that too will have an end. Before the end we will find time for the physical, the basis of all, and the smallest wave next to nothing (it could also be the biggest, two). After dividing the physical of time, eventually there is nothing, true eternity itself and time exists only in distance. That does not make sense to me but it feels right, to change that demands proof, not feelings, I just don't know how, yet. To end this nonsense, to borrow a scientific term, I was only describing a glass of water and dividing the water and nothing else. The smaller I look is not eternal unless I choose to describe something I did not start with or even consider until what I did consider, H2o, could no longer be divided and still be called water.

Object (A) changes at one rate and object (B) changes at half the rate. Object (A) changes at every instant and object (B) changes at every other instant. For object (B) every other instant is not possible, the instant is possible and happens, change within that instant is not. That is how time can be the same and two different objects can have two different rates of change, at least one possibility.

DNA. A father and mother each have their own individual DNA and children can and do have a different individual DNA result, but not always. DNA is not eternal; it is a limited number of variables in exactly the same order. The same variables using the same math equation or two (merging and splitting) can have a different result. Not all the DNA variables are used, only some from each parent, and different at least in one way to have a different result. It is possible, given the same variables and the same math equation(s), no matter how unlikely, could have the same DNA result from different pregnancies, but that would not be the same individual, identical twins proves that. The points in space they occupy are different and so are the possibilities. I just read that identical twins do not have identical DNA, so identical twins do not prove that. When and how does that change happen? If given enough time and chances, eventually the same DNA variables could result in a repeated DNA. The only way I can reconcile the same variables in the same order and the same math equation(s) having a different result is a different starting point between each individual DNA. Or not possible is somehow or some when is added, but at different instants, like the different rates of change, and that could determine what to use and what not to.

True eternity has no beginning and no end, but I can choose an instant in eternity. Now is eternal, no matter which instant I choose, apply relative and that same instant can be applied at every other point anywhere in the universe, even to nothing, it is a comparison of two, something that is and something that is not, there is a difference. That, however, cannot be done to empty or none because what was is still something, just what that something changed to is being ignored, creating empty or none, the math of me, everything I do not have, cannot see or choose to ignore. Apply empty or none to nature and never ignore relative and empty or none always fails. Never and always, apparently I do dare.

If perception or existence is the only reason time or the universe exists, then how did any one of us get here to begin with? Points of nothing changed to points of energy, is my guess, and that demands time, a difference. Apply relative, and time was or could be.

Time can exist without space or the universe, space or the universe cannot exist without time, and that includes everything and anything, motion or change not required. I have evidence and guesses; can you think of any or prove it wrong? Proving a fact right demands more than one piece of evidence in science and proving a fact wrong only demands once in science or it should....

The definition of time should include at a minimum, change, distance, difference and instant or now. Is difference different than change or distance, or is difference what they both are? The past and future do not exist, but can be described as what now was and what now possibly could be. How is any of those not part of time or what time is? What else should be included?

In a race, time is applied equally to all runners no matter their movement. That is how time works in the universe, no matter my movement I experience time in exactly the same way even if my size changes. In relativity, each runner's position and perception is considered to everything else or can be, even their movement and if their size changes. The runner in lane ones view of the runner in lane three being viewed by the runner in lane five is one example of relativity. Time is applied equally to all the runners, is how time, instant or now works in the universe.

For time to have different rates in relativity, the past could exist before the future, and then I should know what is going to happen before it does and I do not because the speed of light is constant. As I speed up, time changes and so does everything else according to relativity. The whole universe changes except me, the only one changing relative to everything else, my experience of time and how I change in time does not. I am not time, the earth is not time and light is not time, and something else is. Relativity physically bends space and time and the rate of change can be physically different. What is the physicality of relativity? I just read relativity is gravity. What is gravity? Spacetime. What is spacetime? Relativity. How convenient. I have never read General Relativity or special and was never taught it, it is being held hostage and for ransom by those who did not do the work, just repeat it. Insulting people who are trying to learn is wrong, no matter your IQ. I just read that Einstein claimed gravity is a constant and a mountain creates more gravity than a valley, which is it? Stop worshiping and repeating and start thinking, refusing to consider is not science.

The speed of light is constant, a proven fact, the speed of light must be squared, a proven fact, math describes reality, a proven fact, which is it? If e equals m c squared, then it is possible that is the fastest speed, magnetism, the hottest, and if the speed of light is the balance point, then it is possible the square root of the speed of light is the slowest energy, the coldest, water. Everything else is in between. Based on the scientific definition of mass, a nuclear weapon on the surface and traveling thru space do not have the same mass. Does E=mc2 fail or pass?

If I could see nothing what would it look like? Distance, not perceptually but logically. It is the only possibility for distance to even exist or be filled. How can I see nothing? Close my eyes and ignore everything. Nothing is distance and distance is part of time, even in thought. If there was nothing and then something, nothing is guilty.

The big and the small work exactly the same, same math, same rules, and the same universe. The difference is knowledge and understanding.

To have understanding, one would have to understand everything, logically speaking. Not eternal wealth or a prize can give me that, that can only be learned within oneself, if it is possible at all. The best chance is true science.

Is one plus one two? I have two apples, according to math they are exactly the same in every way, reality proves that wrong. To even have that equation, relative must be applied. Ignoring relative proves itself wrong. Nature is hiding another secret. There is balance in math. There are far more secrets to earn, in simple thoughts and acts. My path needs to change, other goals I hope to accomplish. There are many true scientists better than me, too many to count. You can do it, and I have faith in you.

One plus one or one minus one is math, equal to all others, logically. Who discovered those? Without them, math would be possible but not exist, in our reality.

If I am right about even one thing I am blaming time, trying and chance.

How can math be wrong? One two pound object plus a two pound object equals two objects. One two pound object plus a ten pound object equals two objects. Math is right, am I asking math the right questions?

Math tells the truth, but can be deceiving. If you buy a stock at ten dollars and it drops to one dollar and then goes up to two, all the news is about the one hundred percent rise.

If anything is possible, then not possible possibly exists. Would that make a possibility possibly not possible or not possible probably not probable?

Is one minus one nothing? I have two apples, I eat one by one, math appears right, because now there are none. When I use thought and look deep inside, the two apples are still there, is math still right, only because the apples, are out of my sight?

A sperm enters an egg, two cells suddenly appear, and billions are added, until there are about fifteen trillion individual cells. Science can tell us the process, first this and then that, like the universe itself, an eternal miracle, me, you and everything else.

Back To Index

## Universe - Some thoughts I think about.

Galaxies spin too fast and do not fling things into space because they are weightless or floating where galaxy gravity is much weaker similar to gravity around the earth and their gravity strongest and keeps them within the galaxy arms and their combined gravity could be the cause of those arms formation and not as seen in other galaxies and it may be a matter of relative between weakeast and strongest and there are all kinds of things going on out there and here and further in the galaxy gravity strengthens to a black hole the strongest gravity there is other than space maybe.

I am thinking about a mountain and a valley and how gravity changes, and all the events on the sun and how they change gravity, especially magnetism if any. If magnetism does not, is it possible we are in the center point of magnetism? Even if we are that still could mean we are in a black hole since black holes can have a magnetic field or maybe even a sun, the problem with those is the expansion maybe. The CMB is evidence and if it is expanding how can background radiation expand? I think I read when some things explode they leave behind background radiation, do they also move thru space if so what is moving them? I am also thinking that the dark spots of the CMB are everything we see because we cannot see the same thing in one instant in time in two different points in space so far away from each other, if that is possible or not, I am not sure. What does that make the rest of the CMB that we do see is possibly the energy of space or dark reality if there is such a thing, opposites, what we see in the CMB is not seen and what not is seen in the CMB is what we see plus the rest of the un-visible universe, a guess. Another is the dark spots in the CMB is light moving away from us and brings the questions of how and why.

An ice skater tightens their body to spin faster. The sun spins the fastest at the equator, is it because there is more mass or plasma at the equator and once it starts spinning there is more mass or plasma behind it pushing harder causing faster? Is that also observed in the gas giants? The equator does have the most mass or probably does and that probably depends on what the rest of the surface is. The equator having the most mass and gravity may explain how things end up there eventually. Are the satellites in space adjusted or once in orbit they maintain it and if they were not adjusted would they end up at the equator eventually? I am guessing their speed matters and whether they are within gravity's pull or push or just enough outside of it. I claim push because how can the weakest point of gravity be the source or the cause and not stronger gravity and how does gravity get stronger the closer to the surface even though when objects fall that force does not appear to be there at all in difference?

I am sitting at a glass desk and can see what is underneath it and me in the reflection. Light is traveling thru the glass and reflected back thru it for me to see underneath and some is reflected away to hit me and reflect back and then reflect away again to see my reflection. Glass is not a mirror but can act similar in some ways. When the photon hits me and then the glass how does it maintain its data is it because the glass has no data to give?

The astronauts on the space station are weightless or at least float, where is the centrifugal force or is that different? An astronaut leaving the surface feels G-force until they leave the earth's gravity and feel weightless, they are still moving thru space more than none, and based on a claim any movement more than none is an automatic gain in mass and weight in space, is there or is that only after a certain speed or is that only for the spacecraft and does not apply to what is inside? A spaceship orbiting the earth in an elliptical pattern gains and looses speed; is there an equal gain and loss in mass and weight outside of earth's gravity? Bending space, space is not a piece of paper, if space is something, can water be bent as claimed? What happens in water if water is bent, and if space is bent what would fill the space all around it, nothing? A space rock with a mass of one hundred pounds hit the moon. I was told mass is energy and has nothing to do with weight, so there you go. Is that one hundred pounds on the earth or one hundred pounds on the moon? There is a difference.

Everything is slower than light, and the earth is only 380,000 light years behind the first light after fourteen billion years to see that light from the CMB today? The big bang plus 380,000 light years and where was the earth at that time relative to that light to meet that light today? The furthest galaxies light and where was the earth relative to them when their light first left and for the earth to meet that light today? In a mirror, I must exist to see myself eventually; I cannot see myself before I existed in time or light. The light from that star took one billion light years to reach us, and we were one billion light years away from this point in time to meet that light today. We did not exist when that light first left that star but we are not seeing ourselves in that light, just that light reach us today and light from 380,000 light years after the big bang just reaching us today is seeing ourselves in light before we are by around fourteen billion years which is today. I can understand how light from a star can reach us before we existed but not how we can see ourselves in light from the big bang before we existed. Are we not seeing ourselves in light from the CMB before we are? Is there an example or experiment that can prove we can see ourselves before we existed? What we see is not there today or different, but we are slower than light and took this long to get here and see all that light reach us today, and when we are seeing ourselves before we are is my problem, I guess. A rover is on Mars and I am on the Earth, the instant the rover sends a signal is the same instant as on Earth and takes time to travel. Move the rover much further into space and someone not born yet or exists can receive that signal in the future. Even after that explanation, I am still having problems understanding how we can see ourselves before we are in light because we cannot and the big bang plus 380,000 light years is everything including us still there at that time in space and could not possibly see ourselves in light from then fourteen billion years later is my understanding. Telescopes do not see light further out in time or space, every telescope on the planet including Hubble is light hitting their mirrors in this point in time in this point in space today. Is that wrong?

The Milky Way galaxy is too heavy and has a large amount of gas all around the edge, is that not possible for larger or heavier galaxies? Is that gravitational lensing and not space bending or spacetime?

Mass is the cause of gravity, a black hole is a dead sun, a dead sun is no mass. A black hole has a magnetic field is what I read. How is it possible that light cannot escape a black hole but a magnetic field can? How is the magnetic field seen, is that not light?

The moon has been there for a long time, since then there have been many volcanoes that can force material into space, and many asteroids that have hit the surface and forced material into space and those could be reasons we find the same material there as on the earth, at least possible. The moon does not spin but still has gravity. If the surface was smooth, gravity would not act the same or should not based on the two satellites measuring the difference and a mountain and valley and I cannot see how gravity can be a wave and act the way it does, waves usually force and sometimes create a tube, at least in water. When a large wave is close to shore the water gets pulled to the large wave. How can gravity lock the moon even though it is moving away? When things fall they fall straight unless air or force is in play, and in space gravity keeps things in place while they go around, elliptical seems to be a favorite word, more and less, sometimes in opposite directions, for a while anyways and I think gravity is something else or has a better explanation and our understanding of it is not right at all, gravity is the bending of space, gravity is in the atmosphere and below the surface where space is not and lucky for scientists they don't have to solve anything because Einstein solved it all especially time which made sense to them just don't ask me how and why.

The experiment with the plane descending quickly, things and people float are they considered weightless even though gravity exists there? Gravity exists between the earth and the moon too and then there is the sun's gravity and our whole galaxy as well. If things are weightless can centrifugal force work?

Mass's push is stronger than gravity and can leave, a sun, looses mass and a black hole is revealed, push is too weak to leave and pull too strong and appears black but is not because light cannot leave and also how it appears cold but is still hot inside, push and pull is still there and a point and how the event horizon is created, and the mass that is left is crushed to its smallest point and is too strong to allow anymore to enter and may reach an unbalanced point and spits out the rest the two opposite jets of energy, and collapses again and explodes when all push ends, and all the black holes data is redistributed into space to reform with others if given chance or possibly pulls itself into dark reality if there is and none of its data is lost just back to where it came and appears to disappear, and two black holes can merge because the pull of each is greater than each push inside and the unbalanced mass is ejected and the gravity waves appear if that is what they are, but I still do not know what gravity is or how it could work or where mass comes from and goes to, plus a few other things, if not more, and I may be all wrong, or right for the wrong reason or right because I do not know how or why, by the way.

It is possible that not everything must have an opposite. If time is eternal, then all directions exist, all time exists, no past and no future just now, and our reality including light is slower but not in time, the same as a race, the time is the same for each runner but each runner does not move or change the same, and energy can be the same as time or slower, and time is the fastest and cannot be slower than change or light or anything else and time does not have to move backwards or change speeds for time to move forward whether it is eternal or not and all space should be now otherwise light would prove the future can exist before the past and everything we see would not make sense and it does based on what we see.

Has light proven the future can exist before the past just once? No, and that should prove now and the future cannot exist before the past unless that can be proven in nature and not math or belief. The problem is what is a fact? Is it something that can be proven right more than once or something that cannot be proven wrong even once?

Magnetism does not move backwards and the center point is not stopped, it is where the force comes from and if I am moving backwards and turn, I am moving forward in the same direction. If time can, light can, can light move backwards or just in math or is light not considered when seeing time?

A study proves time moves backwards. Did the video recording time moving backwards move backwards too? Did the computer CPU? Did your math equations move forward to calculate backwards or did math move backwards and not forward? Did the balls start scattered or from a single point? Consider all evidence and not just what you choose. The future cannot exist before the past, otherwise the past did not exist, and it did, other than in light, which is not time just how we perceive it. Can light show time moving backwards while moving forward? If the CPU continued time moving backwards it would undo itself, and why or how did time stop while everything else in the CPU continues to move forward in time? Quantum entanglement is light and opposites and that could be the difference between perception and reality and not time reversed.

If mass changing changes gravity, how are they different or the same? Where does gravities waves come from or are made if not mass or energy or force? How is mass, energy or gravity different or the same?

I would rather have a question I cannot answer than an answer I cannot question, I heard that on TV and who ever came up with that, you did what you do not want, I believe, and welcome to true science, I believe.

Bees can do basic math and understand the concept of zero. The point the bees understand as zero is physically and factually full of something else that the bees do not want or need. A band has zero prizes, is zero describing the band or prizes? The band is not zero and the prize was awarded to another band and is not zero for them. Go back in time before the prize was awarded and follow the prize thru each instant until after it is awarded, at which instant did the prize change to zero? You made the claim now prove it, if you can, if not, what is 1-1? I can prove two and describe the instant mathematically. The prize is empty or none because it is over there and not over here and zero describes everything that is not but only if I ignore everything and demand everything does not exist, science 2019. There are zero dinosaurs today, there are bones, oil and other things including everything they were and if science is right their energy, they ate and were eaten a transfer of energy and zero can only be right if I choose what not reality is and there is no change and there is. This will cost you zero dollars, dollars are not empty or none and do exist, I can explain and prove further, can you? Zero is balance, no difference, comparing objects and possibly reality. You don't care what the future thinks? I do and we will.

I learned a new math yesterday and forgot the name which is really the only thing I learned, it is how a donut can change into a coffee mug and be the same, and that was very interesting and if it wasn't for videos showing the change, I could not understand most of the words on that page nor the math, which made me think how many different math's are there? Is it similar to the law, no one really knows so just make more to fix the problem, or is nature really applying all those math's at once?

Pi is not the first five digits or first thousand it is all of them or not Pi at all. A circle is finite, the line drawn thru it is finite, the square drawn within is finite, draw any shape you want and it is finite, not infinite, and to prove Pi we need to wait till the end of time which of course will happen according to scientists who can prove no time with math describing what is not, and all their math equations that use Pi will never end proving math that uses Pi right while shaking my head no, and since right and wrong are the only two possible possibilities, I am at least half right and not more, proven mathematically. Using the value of Pi the absolute value of area of a circle can be calculated. If Pi never ends how can the absolute value of area exist or end? Is Pi absolute or close enough and not Pi at all? What is a fraction? Pi equivalent is twenty-two sevenths are you measuring one circle of more than three?

The Earth's magnetosphere is not perfectly aligned with the rotational axis of the Earth, despite my hope, and geomagnetic north in Greenland has changed little over the last hundred years, and magnetic north does not sit still, it hops around, while magnetic south does not hop around and remains relatively still. I am thinking that magnetic south is not connected to the magnetic north we believe, the one that bounces around, but a different magnetic north possibly within the Earth unknown to us, explaining how magnetic north can bounce around and not equally with the south, possibly.

Tiny little clump of cells with two tails, invade a snail, their elementary school, upon graduation skip to frog university to create an extra limb, a birds fine meal, where the graduation party begins, space travel, spreading their babies to new galaxies, imagine if cells had thought, intelligence or life itself. Speak of plants, and every scientist on this planet has far more knowledge than me and even in their silence, speaks their truth.

When the speed of light is measured, is a variable second or a constant second applied? When I travel and calculate time and distance, whether underground, surface, air or space, should I apply a variable rate of time or a constant rate of time to attempt pinpoint accuracy? What if a red light stops me, should I stop time?

I read the clocks on GPS satellites run slower to compensate for a change in time, proving the future can exist before the past an anomaly that could never be and there is a better answer. That is a difference in gravity and change, not time, and if gravity is the cause then as the wave changes, a mountain and valley, so should the clocks change, do they? The coldness of space should slow change but the gravity wave may be a cause for a difference, until gravity ends, what then, no time or all time? Space is empty if I apply ignore it must be no time. The speed of light is constant cannot exist with different rates of time or no time.

Space is very cold and the Earth hotter, in coldness change and movement slow to the point of stop and time is the fastest, in hotness change and movement speed up and time slows to the point of stop.

Space is water, a headline I glanced and have been thinking about, there are many reasons to consider it, the only argument I have so far is water freezes because of impurities, based on what I read, are galaxies impurities? It is possible space is water and absolute zero, not sure if that is no temperature, the coldest temperature or no movement, but space is expanding or appears to be and there may be a reason how space is or could stay at absolute zero, even with impurities. Is it possibly size or maybe because it is expanding?

A mountain creates more gravity than a valley, if different objects with different masses were added to the valley, the measurements should be different and predicted. Different shapes, hollow, liquids, solids, gases and possibly plasma, all kinds of tests, I believe.

The math is right proven by the observations and predictions, no need for questions. New observations reveal more exoplanets or objects than observed before. The new observation proves the math and predictions wrong, no need for questions. The Earth has gravity, does the gravity wave detector detect the gravity waves of the Earth, if not, why not? Gravitational lensing should happen around the earth, can that be studied? Gravitational lensing does not happen around the earth, only the edge of galaxies too heavy similar to our Milky Way, and I misinterpreted evidence and is nothing new for me. If gravity bends light and not a magnetic field which apparently keeps light straight, and since gravity and magnetism is on the surface, is light straight or curved and what is the reason? The images of the Earth's magnetic field is curved or rounded, light does not follow that I believe, what keeps light straight and how does gravity bend light and not? Since gravity bends space, can that be measured around the earth? Since a mountain creates more gravity than a valley, is gravity curved or another shape? I forgot, no need for questions, oops.

The astronauts on the space station age slower because of gravity, proving Einstein right. My head ages faster than my feet because of gravity, which proves Einstein right. Both of those statements contradict each other, prove each other wrong. If I do not know what time is or the differences and similarities between time and change, what am I measuring? Consider experiments with absolute zero or a frog that freezes and thaws and stays alive, a nature show I saw on TV. Time is not based on relativity, time is based on possibilities, even with no change, and possibilities exist, and Einstein's whole understanding of time is proven wrong with a little frozen frog. If aging is faster on the space station, there is less gravity, less mass, less energy, less energy speeds up change? Get in a space ship and travel faster is a gain of mass, time and aging slow, I thought I read the larger the sun, more mass, the faster it burns or changes and exists less relative to a smaller sun with less mass or energy. There is evidence on the surface that aging can be slower or faster and that is within us, giving the appearance gravity has nothing to do with it, if it does, how? If the frozen frog remained frozen and was placed in different gravity or even altitudes and space, how does gravity change the frozen frog?

The New Horizons Spacecraft, such wonder, the imagination of flight written in words into reality with the creation of invention, and a few things in between, the ability to measure light from sun to Earth, and sun to Pluto then Ultima Thule and back again, helping see what our eyes cannot, differences and similarities, leading to answers and more questions, thanks to the work of many, what science and scientists have and can achieve.

If I was in a room with no light I still experience existence, and if I was traveling at the speed of light and light was not hitting my eyes I would still experience existence even in complete darkness, and if I was traveling at the speed of light into the light, assuming my brain could process at that speed and I could see, would time appear slowed or stopped? No. One photon hits my eyes every minute, one photon hits my eyes every second, I will perceive time differently in each instance, but that does not prove time has different rates, just that I can perceive time differently, consider a strobe light, and I could never see time stopped and to understand that demands thinking and not repeating.

A light-clock formed by a photon bouncing between two mirrors will define time for the observer. It will define the perception of time for the observer, not the reality of time itself, there is a difference, and to see it I must ignore my eyes and apply logic instead. Repeating without question will not help me. A note to Psychologists, I tried other methods and failed, and based on experience it is the only method I found that works, in reality, scientists think differently than most, is my claim, and this was just another attempt to prove Einstein right once again and the evidence is Einstein said, silly made up math and belief, all what a scientist needs, is that better psychologist? My intent was to teach how to think and not repeat which you already knew, you read a book and know everything like me and don't need to question.

I recently looked up infrared and happened to read about the scientist who discovered it and how he did it in 1800. I honestly believe I would have never put a thermometer where there was no light, why would I, there should be nothing to measure, but he did, and in an attempt to guess why, I only have one, why not?

If I am traveling at the speed of light, a photon directly behind and in front of me could not hit me and we are all changing in distance, and in time. Does sound have something similar to photons or just one continuous wave and does not change to a point? If I traveled faster than sound, can I still hear? What if sound waves from other sources were in front and all around me is there a speed I cannot hear, and if I traveled faster than the speed of light, can I still see?

A black hole in the lab, an experiment on a science show, the light freezes around it and does not move, proving time stops, I can see it, continually, it must be hitting my eyes or I could not see it, time is not stopped at that point but possibly light redirected or whatever happens to photons when they suddenly disappear, something to consider.

Now is not real? Roll a pair of dice, can they stop without now, if so, how?

When one body hits another there is an equal and opposite force? A ball on the surface hit with twenty pounds of force and a ball while in the air hit with twenty pounds of force travel different distances because of friction. Does equal pass or fail? Depending where the ball is hit on its surface and twenty equals twenty and there can be friction when two bodies hit, where does friction go, and if two bodies can hit frictionless, what is that difference?

The blackness of space is the absence of light. I am on the earth which rotates around our sun. When I face the sun it is daytime for me and space is no longer black because it is full of light from our sun. When I am opposite the sun, the earth blocks our sun's light and it is nighttime for me and I see the blackness of space, which is the absence of light. The stars I see in the blackness of space at night are light from all those stars in possibly all directions, the opposite of absence. Speak of paint and black is white and white is black, relative to light, based on what I read. Black absorbs all light and white reflects, just not in space and light. I propose space is not really black but is a limit of my perception, and is possibly clear, how light can move thru the blackness of space and not be absorbed or how the blackness of space appears even with the presence of light. How can I test that? Consider the moon; a full moon is on the dark side or night sky of the earth behind the earth relative to the sun and a new moon is in front of the earth relative to the sun and appears black. When I see a full moon light is traveling past the edge of the earth all around, in other words space is full of light moving away from eyes. Space is not black because of the absence of light; it is black because of the absence of light hitting my eyes. That probably explains how space appears black at night even when the light from our sun is full in space or when light from stars are hitting my eyes; it is the absence of light hitting my eyes and not the absence of light in space that gives the false perception of space is black or empty or void of light. How my brain sees, interprets or focuses probably also plays a role.

Space is empty, how does space stretch light? Space is empty, how or what is expanding? The CMB, is that why we believe space is expanding? Everything was blown away from the CMB, how is it still there, what is background radiation and does it suggest space is something or empty?

Time is an instant and is one possibility or no change or difference. Two instants is the fastest rate or change in time or two possibilities, a difference, and that rate is faster than the speed of light and is how time dilation exists. The speed of light is used to calculate distance and is not a measure of time itself, but we apply a second to measure that speed and distance, a measurement of time that we choose based on the earth's rotation around the sun which will change in the future and a day will be longer, based on what I read. Even if everything stops time will move on and perception or awareness of it is irrelevant, proven by the universe being here before any and all of us, possibly and probably.

There are so many scientists who I love to read or watch on TV, the biggest problem I have is understanding what they are trying to teach me, not their fault but mine, their writings or science shows helps my puny little mind think and wonder, they are trying to inspire the scientist hidden within all of us, I can see it in babies, one of my nephews at eight months old kept trying to get one piece to fit in another, suddenly he flipped it and it fit, he looked at me and I could see the wonder of discovery written on his cute little face, that happens to most of us probably on a daily basis, sometimes I just have to look hard enough and try something different, and sometimes there it is.

A particle accelerator, which I know nothing about, other than magnetism is used to accelerate particles is what I read and now have read that magnetism is not used to accelerate particles but to keep them aligned, don't believe everything I read, I guess, a transfer of energy it appears to me, does Einstein explain how particles can accelerate and gain mass or energy in space? Is it possible that depending on what particle, how many and at what speed they hit determines a sun or something else? Photons travel at the speed of light, what happens when they hit, infinite energy, or is that what a photon already is? What is the difference between temperature and heat? It is just two particles hitting each other, isn't it? Where did that energy come from? Massless particles move thru space, does that fit the definition of movement and mass or energy as Einstein explained? Can something exist without energy, if so, how is that measured? Thoughtless cannot create thought; can I prove that wrong, if not, what does it prove? I believe.

In my theory, if that is what it is, I claimed the Earth is pushing outward and space is pushing downward creating the edge of our atmosphere, it worked nice in my imagination which only has so much value, in reality, evidence, is the only value that matters. Thanks to some science articles, I read that gravity on the surface can be more or less relatively speaking, and that reaches out all the way to the two satellites that are measuring those differences. The pictures I have seen of the edge of our atmosphere appear to be smooth and rounded, not matching gravity, at least in perception, it may and only experiments and measurements can solve that, which of course imagination can help. Everything is, exists and acts for a reason, one of the many purposes for science to even be, finding those reasons in truth from beginning to end as best we can. Reality including all of us that was, is and will be must be part of that reason, at least in my imagination, and imagination can be silly, at least in mine, why I always try to question everything and anything, especially me.

When scientists speak of climate change, they are speaking of the pollution that poisons our environment and our bodies, they have evidence and explaining to someone like me is probably very difficult for them, they have to simplify what is very complicated, and teaching can be hard even for a scientist, I learned in communication that it is the communicator's obligation to be clear and understandable otherwise communication can fail, why science has so many definitions it is an attempt to be clear, but there can be too many and is confusing instead, it is nothing new for science, as new discoveries are made, knowledge and understanding are added, which takes time even for a genius, and then there are the arguments, which I really love, it helps me learn even when I believe I am right but really wrong, learning is a process and sometimes can be ugly, science history teaches what we believe is right today may not be in the future, and if we keep poisoning our environment and our own bodies, there may be no future at all, at least not for humans, why scientists care, at least most of them.

If I prove a scientist wrong, it is just one thing and not everything, scientists have the ability to do things many of us do not, we each have limits and strengths, understanding is one of them, I don't really know what an atom is or an electron, I can look it up but if I really want to understand, a scientist can really help, they know many things, stubbornness like most humans is another one of them, sometimes to the point it is hard to believe, until I consider me, stubbornness versus stubbornness, guess which wins? If learning is the answer, then we all do, and that is one of the many greats of science, why scientists work hard, they care about finding right, not just for themselves but everyone else as well.

How is the speed of light measured? Distance traveled per second. Time does not exist at the speed of light Einstein said based on what I read, time and distance is the only way the speed of light can be measured. Distance does not exist in time and time does not exist in distance, what I have been told, again the speed of light cannot be measured without it.

I read an article about coconut oil and the scientist reported the facts accurately, some responses were the scientist is wrong because there are thin and healthy Polynesians, they have had that diet for who knows how many generations and this is new to my body and may be or not healthy for me. All our bodies are different, some can eat salt and sugar, and others should not. It was just a miscommunication really.

Time does not exist before a beginning; there is not one piece of evidence that proves that right and plenty of evidence that proves that wrong. Time must exist before a beginning; there is plenty of evidence that proves that right and I cannot think of one that proves that wrong, can you? Math explains logic, logic does not explain math.

Lightning and sprites, lightning appears to start in the clouds and a step leader near the ground, a positive and negative connection, lightning can go sideways and in any direction and does not appear to have a need to be grounded to end, sprites are lightning in the opposite partly, from clouds to space, and it is possible that there is another positive and negative connection, possibly explaining space or magnetism that surrounds our planet, how far out do sprites go?

There are space agencies around the world, and they have people's lives on their minds and care very much about not failing, I don't have that burden and is easy to criticize or judge from the outside, that does not prove me right, the scientists that work hard, sacrifice and care do prove right.

If I was traveling at the speed of light, I would change and grow older, time does exist for me even at the speed of light, and light is created, changes its data, stretches and contracts and takes time to travel in distance. Time does exist even at the speed of light and an instant is faster than the speed of light. Everything I perceive will look different but the further the object I see the less the difference even at the speed at light.

Stored energy in elemental elements I assume. Where? How? We store energy and can measure it, is it measured in elemental elements? When? Split open or combines, I have a guess, space itself, what is yours?

A photon leaves the sun and travels in distance, time does not exist in distance or distance does not exist in time. That sounds right.

Temperature measures how fast particles are moving, whereas heat measures the total amount of energy that they transfer. I did not know that and now changes my thinking.

Eternity and infinite are different? Can infinite exist without eternity and can eternity exist without infinite? I see no difference when I consider eternity with infinite in it, a beginning can be claimed, but in eternity, not really.

How can the energy that creates photons be slower than the speed of light? Light is not separate from time, light cannot exist without time, time can exist without light. The speed of light would change if time slowed or sped up.

I have one H2o, one water molecule, I split the H from the two o, and one water molecule is now none. Everything the water was, is and could be is still there, not empty or none, if I connect the one H to the two o, magic happens, and one water molecule is created from none. All life knows the difference between one and none, the difference between eating and not, I hope my fellow humans, especially scientists, at least try to understand the difference between ignoring relative and applying relative, you have been given a reason to consider how and why, and always apply time, whatever that is.

I am not claiming to be right, but math is not evidence, examples, experiments and observations are, and question everything, including explanations by searching for other examples, experiments and observations, and nature is never wrong and always right, even if we do not understand how or why. Nature fights nature based on what we observe, maybe she is still trying to find right, you must ask her, many in history have claimed it, but she loves to trick or maybe just change, her way of teaching is my guess.

I will never know right if I always choose wrong.

When I was working on my theory I kept thinking the inside is pushing outward against gravity and an active core may be doing that, but when I consider smaller objects that do not have a core like the earth there is no pushing outward they are being crushed as much as they can, the same reason why not all suns collapse into a black hole, mass matters. I forgot, the closer two objects get, the more the push away, another reason I was thinking pushing outward, nature playing her games. The truth is in there somewhere, between gravity and never touching. What are the possibilities?

Time does not exist in probability? That is a neat trick; can any calculation be made without time itself? If dice were rolled exactly the same in every way, does the outcome change? When does probability begin and end? Same as time. Always and never?

Define an instant. Does spacetime? If so, than one instant relative to another is different. The speed of light is constant, time, instants or now should be too. Time dilation itself should prove time is faster than light and constant. Light is not separate from time, like everything else. I have been told every math equation describes an instant. Time is different based on relativity and can stop, in other words not exist, an equation that defies what it describes.

If nothing or a void have no distance, then what is beyond the CMB? How is the universe expanding or growing in distance if it is not nothing or a void then what? If space is something is it full? If so, how can there be more than space?

The sun's gravity, you can measure just the earth or the moon and apply relativity to both, ignore the sun and your measurements are inaccurate. Relativity is not always just two, something to consider.

If we could send two satellites at different rates to a slower expansion than ours and two at different rates to the faster expansion than ours and send light to us and we send light to them, we may learn something.

Math anomaly, I buy a stock, opportunity cost, one to two, two to three, three to four, just one way I measure. Add infinite, and the percentage can never be zero or none, and the larger the numbers the smaller the percentage. Just because math claims it does not prove reality can, how math can trick me. In reality, there are limits, question math.

GPS prove time dilation? If there was an instant connection, quantum entanglement, if that is what it is, then time dilation would not exist. Is quantum entanglement faster than light? It must be, if it is right. Photons are still used to communicate or send data so the speed of light is still the limit and time dilation still exists, my understanding was wrong, shocker, once again.

The expansion stretches light? Consider opposites. Light originates from the fastest part and travels toward the earth, which is slower relative to that point. The front part is traveling at a slower rate relative to the back and should be squeezed, but the expansion is in the opposite direction and stretches it. The opposite, light leaving our sun and traveling toward the fastest part of the expansion, the front part is traveling at a faster rate than the back part and stretches it. (The speed of light is constant; it is space that travels different relative to another point, I guess). The distance light stretches that comes toward us cannot be the same as the distance light stretches leaving us because of the expansion. If space effects light by stretching it, is space physical or maybe because it is energy or force? Is there a way to stretch light in an experiment, if so, it may help explain what space is, or how light can stretch. What force moves light in any direction and does not seem to end and stays constant? If space is not constant then that can't be it. If space is constant and just the objects are moving faster, could it be just the Doppler Effect and not the expansion of space, the further the object the more effect? Could that explain the blue shift for closer objects but none for further objects? (Based on what I read which of course I do not understand, I rarely do, if ever, why I guess). Can magnetism stretch light? It is an electromagnetic wave and magnets can affect each other.

There is no such thing as always and never? What is eternity? Always was, is, and will be and never ends. If eternity is wrong, then there is an end, what is on the other side? I would rather believe in eternity, it is easier that way.

The No Boundary Proposal, even simpler, but no fewer complexes for me is 0+1 and 1-1, the basis of the question. To find the truth the wrongs and the rights must be known. Why the curve in the beginning? Gravity? Why is the very edge of space curved, like the diagram, what is stopping it? Why not another shape? Is there an open end to the universe, considered the earliest part of the universe, like the diagram, or are we completely surrounded by the CMB? Is imaginary time where I was before I was born and where I go when I die? (A scientific question of observation versus evidence.) If time was bent, that would make time physical, what is the physicality of time? An absolute, about 13.82, what is time?

A photon has no energy? It exists, what is it made from? Energy. The sun, lightning and fire create photons, and it takes energy for photons to exist. Photons can carry data and that data can change, how we see different things, data demands energy. The sun exists and when photons leave it they have the data of the sun, that data cannot be empty or none, maybe not able to be measured, or maybe the photon steals energy from the matter it hits, at least the ones that bounce away. When a photon enters an atom, it can create an exited state, energy. Then there is water, what kind of energy is that? I don't think water creates photons.

If energy and mass are the same, no difference, and energy can be eternal, proven by zero, empty or none and balance, then one mass can be eternal, one little tiny finite particle.

A waterfall, an Archimedes screw, balls or something else can be used too, many possibilities, with the correct angles and gear ratios, round and round it goes. Input gravity, output energy, environmentally friendly, it can also be buried.

One thousand shares at one dollar equals one thousand dollars. A ten percent return is one point one; to keep ten percent of the shares and receive one thousand dollars is one point one one, a difference mathematically speaking. Why? I think I found two answers, there must be more questions, more fun, scientifically speaking.

Light is an electromagnetic wave and sometimes a particle, it depends. Does light prove everything is magnetism? Did the big bang occur because magnetism was created or evolved, or a collapsed sun and we are in a black hole? I believe the singularity is magnetism sooo....

Relativity of simultaneity, something I have never heard of, I should I think I wrote about it in my theory, if the speed of light traveled at an instant, an absolute of two different points would be observed or an absolute of one point by two observers from two different points. That describes how we perceive time, not time itself. Ignoring our brains and the time to process and all our brains are different, more relativity. Maybe point to point is a better measure. What's a point? Uh oh, here comes that thinking thing again....

A ball on a trampoline creates a depression; a smaller ball will fall down the well. Remove gravity and what happens? On the surface from no matter which point is being pulled or pushed towards the center point, a depression forbids that. Centrifugal force and friction, space is a fabric, the earth spins the moon does not. If there is a depression, would centrifugal force make all objects spin? A molten core, on its own, why would that cause spin? Is friction or heat measured in space for the earth or the moon and would that contribute at all to spin? If gravity is the earth pulling from every possible point would that cause or stop spin? Can centrifugal force exist without gravity or space being a fabric?

I read an article, the expansion rate of the universe, a problem, the Hubble constant applied to two methods with different results, worse a contradiction. The distance ladder and leftover relic method how can both be right? The problem is light; today a light wave contains so many things the early universe did not. It is possible the light wave was different or changes as different things evolve or are added and a light wave evolves itself because of it. A follow up article listed many possibilities, one is considered blasphemy in science, I have evidence decades of it, great job scientist, now we get to answer them, what I consider fun. Imagine a heart that pumps at a constant rate and the blood cells have nothing in their way, and gravity does not exist. Place yourself on one of those blood cells with a telescope, what would you see, what could you discover? Now add gravity. Imagine also being able to see from the outside and the whole of the body. What are the differences and similarities? One train track two separate trains, you are in one train, you observe the other train slowly increasing in distance from you. Two possibilities, both trains are moving in the same direction with one slower, or in opposite directions. It is the same problem with force, perception.

I have read and was taught by so many and have so many to thank, teaching and learning is hard especially when filled with anger and hate, love of learning and learning to love, helping without harming and helping find the right path for all is true equality and the true goal.

A long time ago, during reconciliation, I was off by ten cents, who cares about ten cents? According to the definition of reconciliation I should. The error was not one but two equaling ten thousand, I caught it in time, luckily, a lesson my memory has yet to forget. After that, even one penny gives me fear.

Empty space is a constant. Empty has been proven wrong and not right once and does not exist in nature. Constant is something that can be measured, empty has no constant other than none. None is right only if I choose to describe what it was and ignore what it is. Fractals cannot come from empty or none. Unless this is like absolute zero where zero is not zero, absolute minimum would make more sense, unless zero is reality, then it makes perfect sense, as far as perfect goes. Consider magnetism, if the attempt is to describe space before something enters it that would be nothing, literally, distance and time, imagine outside the singularity, the surface and inside, assuming it was or is a point. What helps me is to apply time to everything I can and never ignore relative, instant by instant, change by change, as best I can. If nothing else guesses and test in one's head, it helps one learn, it does me.

A light particle leaves a point on its way to a wall, in between some when the particle changes to wave and back to a particle right before some when it hits the wall. Was the experiment with the two standing plates about waves and force? The only difference between the two points of travel is the beginning and the end, what else is there? How we perceive, choose, the earth's waves, possibly even gravity could also play a role. What else? The particle is the minimum and the wave is the maximum, the particle is the same wave just squeezed to its minimum. What is the distance the particle changes to a wave from the point it leaves and the distance the wave changes to a particle from the wall? There is a reason it changes shape, it is the only difference.

Why I love math? Math helps me understand things. What I have, expect, plan, reconcile, balance, measure, fill, repair, replace, create, change, music, time, difference, answers and helps me fall asleep, to name a few.

Can stubbornness be right? Patience.

Who wins in science? Everyone, there is no losing in science, just learning, which is winning. If you disagree, step forward and challenge me, if you disagree, will you please teach me? Which is better?

If I could teach just one thing, when in sales I wrote every objection I heard; it was more important than the sale. Wrong proven right with a question, right proven wrong with a question, true science, when the fun really begins and I wish it for all, the waves of my voice pointing towards a twinkling star. All I have to do now is waiting, how long do sound waves take to get to a twinkling star, scientifically speaking?

Why I love science? It may do one good, it would me.

My first year in college one person asked a question, if the universe has an end, what is on the other side? My beginning. Then more questions, mostly about time and nothing, no math, and I never wrote anything down. Imagine remembering one page out a hundred for a test or worse remembering wrong, every test I have taken in my life, logic was my only hope, even if I read it the night before. I was forced. Then sales became my career, the study of human behavior and success, if I wanted to eat. I was forced. Long story short I got lost, for a very long time, other than thought. What I enjoyed and was best at was no longer needed, and because of it, I learned I need to learn more, as many different things as I could. I was forced. Then nature turned my life upside down, only caring for myself was no more, obligation, burden and a pain that cannot be described. I did not think I would make it, but love would not allow it. I was forced. By chance a young woman asked a question that inspired me to write. I was forced. Then the questions changed to me and so many things I have no understanding of. I was forced. Then time and the universe eventually found its way so I could give it to you, as best I could. I was forced. I believe I can find right by first finding wrong. Am I right now? No. Then I choose to learn.....

My movement is none; I accelerate to one and maintain that velocity, not bad. Never being to two, it must be better, logic explained. I accelerate by one to two and maintain that velocity. Can I accelerate from none to two without first achieving one? If so, what do two describe? Three, by the way, is just too much work, and two is good enough for me, not knowing the future explained.

Just my personal opinion, when an experiment "proves" a theory right that is incorrect, scientifically speaking, correctly "adds more evidence" to a theory, based on all science history, right can become wrong and wrong can become right, somehow, both can be right and wrong, in some way, and theories can change, the fun in science, for those with an open mind, closed can be scary, and helping without harming, as best we can, can help change scary back into fun again.

None is right? I have only one apple, I eat it, core and all, and none is now right, what more evidence do I need? Possibility, the apple was made of energy, core and all, and if energy became none there could be no recycle, and since everything today was made from something different in the past, recycle has occurred, unless none can become energy, and not one possibility exists, so far, that can pass that test, logically speaking, that demands science, if the possibility even exists, and probably more stubbornness than me, good luck with that, if it is based on rocks in the head, chance does not exist, probably, where none could never be.

A secret code? The goal of secrecy is to not be found, true intention, the rest is faith. I trust no book, nor genius, nor prophet, nor most humans, I do not know them, and misinterpretation is too easy, I do it every day, even if the true intention is to help, mistakes can be made, and therefore, nor myself. I don't even trust nature, mostly, the rest is faith.

Who will stand up for those who have confused wrong for right, and deny chance to exist, and can define perfection themselves, if not, what does it prove? When is forgiveness right and when is forgiveness wrong?

Who owns science and most importantly scientists? Science is seeking the truth, but there is a limit, morality. I read an article where a few scientists were trying and thinking something different, they had evidence but it was against the mainstream so to speak, and was commanded to cease and desist, and to my horror they bowed while other scientists watched and remained silent. What if the scientists were on the verge of a great discovery? A chance denied. What if scientists tried to silence or stop Einstein and succeeded? Would you claim those scientists were wrong or right?

I have a one hundred and twenty volt input with a twelve volt output. Not similar because of the difference and nothing else? If I was unaware of the transformer how would I explain it? Magic is my guess.

Where is the one on a one inch line? The beginning, end, absolute middle, all or never could be? The universe works and is, so there must be a right answer. My first guess, it depends, again. Second guess, what I choose, if I repeat exactly the same, then it is right for me, the hard part is exactly, that pesky perfection thing again.

What do numbers other than one describe? How many ones and nothing else. Ten is ten ones or the tenth one. Did I just prove my thought experiment wrong again, but different? What about fractions, decimal places or negative numbers, what do they describe? Negative numbers describe how many ones there are not, I guess. Fractions are the same as ignoring relative. The one fraction needs the other to make a whole or one. By ignoring relative, the one fraction becomes one. That is how one plus one is also a valid equation for two fractions that make one, it is what fractions are. Are decimal places the same?

A prize defines a scientist's work, a scientist's work which can demand sacrifice of self and perseverance, among other things, does not define a prize, the work stands on its own and a prize adds nothing to the work, proving the prize worthless. If a prize winner was never given a prize, how is their work worth less? It is not, that is how and why. Trying to read, think, listen and argue beyond what is written is what a scientist does, and there was, is and will be many not just one.

Apply the universe to time or apply time to the universe or both? Gravity bends space time or does space time bend gravity or both? What are the differences and the similarities?

How to teach the math of time? Ask them to pick up any object, as they do say out loud the math of merging, one minus one equals one plus one. Then ask them to put it down, as they do say out loud the math of splitting, one plus one equals one minus one. Is there a better way? Are those equations really opposite or did I just choose to do that? I honestly do not know. Merging and splitting are different so I guess it makes sense. Luckily, the universe is simple (rolling eyes).

How is water clear and other clear objects? Perception, physical or both?

A tree has roots that extend far beyond its base and sometimes new similar trees appear around one. To my eyes they look like separate trees but they are not, it is the same root from just one tree. The ground and the root are three dimensions and so are above ground. There could be a two dimensional line between the ground and above ground that goes both ways, 3D-2D-3D, four thirds plus two thirds equals two, the plus being 2D? Based on everything I can think of there is no such thing as flat, the closer we look it gets bumpy. There may be a 2D line and because of our size or perception it looks 2D, but there is no flat flat unless maybe nothing, empty or none, which is distance, otherwise it never could be filled. How about gravity and force?

Can one be imperfect or one is perfect or can perfect only be one? Is Pi imperfect? Is balance perfect or is close enough good enough, like me? Otherwise, I would never finish, not even one thing. What else?

When I fill a glass with carbonated water, the bubbles move away from the earth toward space. The earth can pull so many huge objects towards it, but bubbles of air are more powerful than the pull of the earth. A secret. What would happen to the bubbles at the point space meets gravity and one mile deep below?

The ancient Greeks believed the observer's position on the surface of the earth is the center of the universe. Their math was mostly right proven by the Antikythera mechanism, a wonder that still excites science, at least some. Today settled science believes one's own perception is the center of the universe, mostly proven by math that ignores relative, which has been proven wrong. Now there is a third, apply relative and do not ignore it. Is there a fourth? Settled science should never be used, it proves there is no more to learn, and nature always proves them wrong, eventually. A true scientist loves being wrong in thought, the more wrongs in thought, is the closer to right. Repeating is learning but not understanding, trying to prove a fact wrong leads to the right path, the path of understanding and true science, where settled is never used, knowing the future, change in evolution is the reason.

Only space time is expanding and not me? Is space time not inside or a part of me?

Are there equations that change energy into matter and matter into energy?

Everything is speeding up in the universe, if the speed of light is constant, everything would look very different than it does. Is the speed of light constant? The speed of light is the balanced point, making the speed of light constant.

Life is a simulation. Life is like a simulation and we have no understanding of it. Be careful what you say, some believe without question, a religion.

Affect, change occurs, contemplating what just happened, an effect in return, once again, change occurs, affect. The effect of magnetism moves an object from its previous point in space. Different points in space are different possibilities, change. Is magnetism an effect or affect, or is it, it depends? An effect cannot precede the cause, I heard a scientist say. Yes, that makes sense to me and did not consider it that way, now I can, thank you scientist that was very helpful. Teaching and learning is nice or can be. Can an effect become a cause? Is light an effect? If so, when light hits me does the effect create a cause which leads to another effect?

Where is the subconscious? It controls the life inside of us, all of it, their own thoughts is our subconscious, they are aware and act on their own, not controlled by any other, they do not need our consciousness, and we need their thoughts. Plants are made of cells and plants are aware of their surroundings. If one cell is removed from my body, can the cell be made to act? It is no longer subjected to my subconscious, how can it act?

Quantum coherence, the quickest path is the smallest wave above not possible, proving not possible just below, if not possible is not there, the quickest path would be quicker. Or the light wave is squeezed or cut to the smallest wave possible.

0+1=1, empty or none changing into one has never been proven, not once, the basis of a scientific fact, and any questions answered based on the basis of that scientific fact, should bring into question everything based on it, including 1-1=0, one changing into empty or none. The basis of a misunderstanding of what math describes and believing perception by ignoring relative when it should not, scientists try their best, everything right with that, they have more to learn, like me and you. Filling a glass with water is the same as me drinking the water, mathematically speaking. Questions should be based on the answers of facts that have been proven, sometimes simply by observing the best laboratory of them all, simply by listening to the story that nature desperately wants to tell, one cell splits into two, 1=2, I eat an apple, 2=1, based on the fact that both can be scientifically factually proven, questions should be based on the answers of proven facts, if not, then the questions should try to prove that fact wrong, the best chance is to think of all the possibilities that I can, my brain may be limited but nature appears to be trying to help, ridiculous questions and answers, thinking is the cheapest most powerful thought processor on the planet, simply in thoughts from the worst to the best with no act, add the learning that requires acts, caution until understanding is to try our best, all lead to the right true path, knowledge and understanding of self to all in the universe to the end of no questions left and beyond, the true path of true science. Try to learn something new and proving facts wrong may seem to be not possible, until I do. Chance is trying.

Philosophers only ask questions, scientists do that with answers, wrong or right is not part of the basis, trying is the only key for change, answers the question philosopher, and suddenly, you are a scientist, the same.

Defining true science, the stronger the fact, the stronger the desire, not knowing everything is the dangling of a fruit, a wrong must be hidden by the possibility of unknown, once in all, hiding in nature beyond the seeing eyes, chance and time combined playing their role, every possibility that can possibly be thought of, one by one, fact or fiction, the mind of a true scientist, not believing what is written, made worse with the worthless prizes attached to toilet paper, the opposite making better, morality the limit on the desire for learning, help or harm, the basis for true intention, before any action failure is irrelevant, fact, it is the instant a wrong has finally been discovered, wrong and right, logically added to the whole of knowledge, trying to prove what is written wrong, need the one possibility, limiting the wrong eternal limitless desire for knowledge before any truth in understanding, the wanting versus needing, true science defining.

My comment is no comment. Something that is that cannot be, being something that it cannot, circular logic. It proves nothing, proving what it is, if nothing could be, in perception, sometimes it is.

What does sound tell us about the universe? Pick the furthest object we hear. How long would sound waves take to reach us verses light waves? Does that change the age of the universe or does it stay the same? Unless what we hear are not sound waves but part of something else, like radio. Is that light? When sound waves originate from the earth what happens to them when they hit the point space meets gravity? Do they stop, bounce back or do some waves move on? If they stop or bounce back, what causes that? Space being empty or none would not, although the speed we are traveling thru space may be a cause, or something else. Sound waves are force; I can feel them when loud enough and see them partly when some things are in their way. Why does force need air? Perhaps the answer can be found in animals versus our ears, is there any that can hear without working ears? Based on what little I know about nature, probably, I think she does not like rules, at least not ours. What are the differences and the similarities between a light wave and a sound wave? If a sound wave could be in space how would it act, what would it do?

Which is more intelligent, math or logic?

For one thing to be everywhere at once, eternity could only fit one thing. There is more than one thing in the universe, proving it wrong, unless there is a part of the universe that everything cannot go, except for one thing. Time?

I read an article, a scientific argument, two different ideas in debate, I remember ioptic, searched it and cannot find it, and in any case, here it is, basically. Two graphs each with two bell curves. In the one graph, the two bell curves are separate and not touch each other, in the other graph, there is some overlap. The argument is that only one can be right, to me, I see both in reality. The first, two possibilities that do not affect each other, directly, the other is when two possibilities do. That is all I that I remember, for now. Maybe chance will play, and help me along the way.

Not possible being the faster than light part of the big bang does not explain not possible inside of it, probably defies it, unless we are being stretched, we are slower, again defies it. Not possible has become possible, I was possibly wrong.

If the universe was a trillion years old, could science prove it? Change says not yet, a whole lot of knowledge would have to be learned, a detective story like no other, and the longer we wait, the harder it gets. Of course, there is always time travel. If time travel is true, do not do anything, it already is done, should we try and see what happens, what could go wrong?

The experiment that splits light into two, the earth is not still, she emits waves, are we hearing the earth in light? Gravity bends light, gravity waves.

Video is sped up to see change, the minimum, how much faster before change becomes a blur, the maximum?

Why is DNA letters and not numbers, or the one solution of math?

When I was a teenager, I went thru a growth spurt, I did not consume that much more energy to justify that growth spurt, where did the extra growth come from?

A point on the surface of an egg is different points in space, different possibilities, chance is at what point the entry is, and the one possibility could be calculated on the surface, like the beginning of gravity. DNA is unique, can split, and create multiple possibilities from one, the only difference between twins is possibilities, and the points in space they occupy. How can the same exact cell change itself into two separate possibilities?

Quantum entanglement is a connection with dark energy, the opposite, negative. I do not know why it vanishes when viewed. Faster than light?

It is believed that sterile neutrinos have no electrical charge but decay; how can decay occur without an electrical charge, or are they giving and taking the charge from the neutrinos?

The color I see is the light bounced back at me, the rest is absorbed, where does it go?

If light slows when it is in water, if reflected back out of the water, would the speed stay at the slower rate, or does it speed back up to the maximum?

If the constant speed of light is sped up or slowed down, what would I see? What is the speed of light in water, does it slow down when it bends, it is not a straight line, is friction created?

Math is fact, as long as the solution is one, the consideration of more, cannot be done, logic searches the one solution, by considering all of them, along the way, even math can be argued, facts suddenly seem confusing, the one solution, appears to be many.

Saturn, clouds in motion, round they go, the same as seen on so many the same, stop and look at the top, the thirty year storm of a hexagon. How can clouds or air do that?

If gravity bends light in space, does gravity bend light on the earth?

Photons repeat the data of eternity. Photons repeat limited data. Which makes more sense, based on reality?

Nothing does not exist. Is it possible that there is only something, everywhere?

The earth is oblong, is the sun? A perfect sphere would send light in every possible direction, what affect would oblong have, if any?

We are from the same, made the same, are the same, and different. Is it the possibilities, fractals and affects? What else?

Could what is on the bottom be traveling at the speed of light? Light looks constant to us, so should they. Is it because of the big bang, the very outside and inside is the speed of light?

Does a chart of diminishing returns match the point of no return in a black hole?

If matter and anti matter combined produces energy, could a black hole be doing that? When the coalesced dust produces gravity, could it force matter and anti matter to combine, sparking a sun and a black hole at the core?

There is no dark matter in the sun. Dark matter is a mystery, but it is known not to be in the sun?

Do negative numbers only exist because we apply relative? According to my reality, less than none is not possible. Dark energy and dark matter?

No matter what the energy source, is light created exactly the same or is the speed the only similarity? Does light tell us that energy is like water, the same can exist in different states?

Is the universe perfect? Perfection does not change, if it did, it would be imperfect, and without change, there is no experience, and without experience, there is no knowledge, and without knowledge, could there be life?

Between two different some things, there appears to be empty space, the atoms do not touch, the closer they get, they push each other away. In this space, does time move the fastest? The barrier is broken, one atom for one reason or another, changes sides, and both some things are changed forever, are waves created and what are the other affects?

Static energy, ball and sprite, different cloud types producing an electric strike, the power that might spark a sun or life, waves of bright light, in space and on planets, the power of the universe, energy static. If there is a part of the universe that is energy static, is that part dynamic? Is that even possible?

Planets change, even when rogue, they pick up dust, particles, other leftovers, at times given and others times stole, and meteoroids when big enough, explode, there may be times when gravity causes spherical perfection, the affect of others and another story is told.

Perfect sphere, oblong caused by gravity of another, on its own, if it was all alone, would gravity cause oblong or a perfect sphere?

Is it the more decimal places the more balanced and eternity is the most balanced? Is the quickest path the solution that takes the longest?

Two circles, each imperfect, combined they achieve eternal Pi, perfection in balance, is it perfection making imperfection or imperfection making perfection with balance? Can eternity only be achieved with balance?

If two different objects are exactly the same in every way, then one plus one is two. If one is more or less at least in one way, then the other must be the exact opposite, creating balance to math, as if each object is exactly the same, is that how math and nature works?

Quantum coherence, based on studies, it appears nature has applied it for the benefit of life, the transfer of light to energy, found in bacteria and algae, low light into a fine dinner and wine, as quick as possible can possibly allow it, all chances rolled into one. Could quantum coherence be occurring in me? If chance or randomness was in play, the quickest path would eventually be wrong, not how it works, apparently, it is written or known by the universe, the definition of what the quickest path is, a set of rules that can only result in one, the quickest path, does chance even play a role?

A quantum computer can only solve a problem that has a solution, how can Pi exist unless the universe can solve it or does a perfect circle not exist and neither does an eternal Pi?

If the universe is expanding, then so am I, and if the universe is expanding faster than me, then I am expanding relative to my previous self, and shrinking relative to the universe. Is there anything shrinking relative to me? (Besides my brain)

Does Pi prove eternity?

Life can be found deep in the earth, could life have started there and not in the oceans? If life was brought by a meteorite, would that life survive the early earth's violent surface of constant bombardment, or the relative safety of deep down below?

The moons of our solar system, what science thought, can change, the small is powerful, enough to change a world.

Does it appear that when we understand we had nature wrong, it is not by a little bit, but the extreme of the opposite? Is it because there is not one answer to balance, but two?

Is the relativity of time the same for each of us and each of our relativity of time different? If so, would time be the smallest, the biggest, or somewhere in the middle?

Light enters the water and bends; the photon only goes down so deep then changes. What affects the photons to change and what happens to them next?

The universe, a singularity smaller than an atom, distances so small, but still exist, the big bang and the universe expands, are distances being added or stretched?

Is nothing distances making nothing something or are distances nothing?

Does distance always exist in nothing or is distance created as something travels thru nothing? Is distance created or just revealed?

Time is none, zero becomes one, beginning of time exists, or time always is?

A fractal, an image of the same object, over and over again, from bigger to smaller, it is the same picture, creating another completely different, made with the help of math, and from the math comes beauty, an image equally seen, in nature.

The past is known, the future is unknown, is now the perfect balance, reality?

Quantum physics, the ability of one thing, to be everywhere at once. Time, changed by relativity, if I was so small, would everywhere at once, be different points in time?

Past, now, future, change, relativity, distance, possibility, probability, absolutes, temperature, mass, gravity, energy, waves, to name a few. Some affect, others affected, eventually, time affects all, whatever that is.

H two O, making exactly the same water, a liquid, a gas and a solid, and now, hydroxide ions (bonded oxygen and hydrogen atoms), it depends.

If the future has a size or length, it is exactly the same as the past, at least until now.

If I was frozen, I stop changing and my now is stopped, but now moves on. If I am un-frozen, my now is not at the point that I was frozen, but the now of all space itself. It appears now and change is or can be separate. If the singularity was frozen, would the now of all space stop, or move on?

One plus one is two, if one is slightly less or more than the other is the answer still two? Whatever the answer, the universe knows how to make it work.

I remember an old science show, a scientist sneezed on an instrument sent to the moon, on its return, it was thought it originated from the moon, when it was realized what really happened, it was viewed under a microscope, and life came alive, proving life can survive completely exposed to the harshness of space.

Three suns over Russia, caused by ice crystals in the atmosphere, proving that light can be deceiving, and don't believe everything I see.

Is chance an unforeseen or unknown affect and that is where possibility begins? If dice were rolled exactly the same, in every way, would the outcome change? Is a mutation a result of chance or an affect? Is no snowflake the same because at each point where one is created, each is affected differently than at any other point? Is chance and affect the same?

In an infinite universe, is our singularity the only one? Possibility says no, there may be more. If our singularity will expand for eternity, what happens if a something from our singularity, affects another? A big bang?

If nothing turns into something and/or something turns into nothing, what does it prove? Eternity?

The past exists with now, only seen in light, the future exists with now, the delay of my perception, take my perception away, what has changed?

Is the universe absolutes or possibility and chance? One plus one is two, an absolute, proving possibility and chance do not exist, and that the future can be predicted. If possibility and chance do exist, then one plus one is not always two, proving math can be wrong, and the future cannot be predicted. Which is it?

Do the questions of what was before the beginning, and what happens after the end, prove eternity?

All the past, had to happen exactly that way, otherwise now would be different, at least in one way, would I still be here, in this now, or another?

As time moves, the past grows in distance, relative to now; does the future change or stay the same?

Does nature apply opportunity cost, or does she work only in chance? The rule of possibility is given enough time, every possibility eventually, will happen. Did possibility exist before the big bang, if so, did time?

What would the relativity of now be like? Is there anything that does not have a now, nothing?

Are there two times, now and distance, and distance only exists because of relativity, and now, if it is everywhere at once, has nothing to do with distance?

I saw an experiment testing the gravitational pull one mile down in the earth. Gravity is lessened, the further down I go. Did the singularity not have gravity, because it was so small?

Based on the theory of how planets are formed, why are there no planets in the asteroid belt? The gravity of Jupiter is what is taught, but what about when the asteroids are opposite of Jupiter and not affected by its gravity?

Does time, or now, put a limit of all possibilities to just one? Between time and chance, which one wins the outcome?

When a photon hits my eye, does the photon enter my brain or is data only exchanged, and the photon bounces away, with the data of my eye?

When a photon leaves the sun, it carries data of the sun, but when it bounces off the moon, the data has changed and I see the moon. Could the corruption of data be because two photons affected each other, as if hitting another object and their data has changed?

What was the first star made of, is it the same material as today or have stars evolved?

I eat to create energy, which is used in many ways, one of which is growth. Do cells change growing into splitting instead?

Is gravity created evenly or does it fluctuate?

Could gravity be shrinking and stretching space creating energy, possibly by affecting the atoms into splitting or fusing, and that sparks a sun?

Two points in space. Assume now does not exist, but time still does in distance between the two points. Did now need possibility and probability too?

If this then that, exactly looped exactly, and then it is not, in a direct or indirect way, chance was always in play. How does chance do that?

Does chance play a role in what is possible or can chance only play if possible will allow it?

If I can imagine the relativity of an ant, can I imagine the relativity of time?

When I see a spectrum of light, is there distinct lines separating the colors, or is there a gradual change from one color to the next? Could now work like that?

When we see a large cloud of dust and a black disk with a new born sun inside, it appears ready to start making planets and maybe more suns. There is no galaxy, no black hole in the middle, is that still yet to come?

Does evolution have a rate and does it fluctuate?

The larger we look, infinity appears possible, the smaller we look, infinity appears possible, are there possibly two infinities and we are somewhere in the middle, or possibly just one?

When something is created in an instant, is an instant a point in time or no time?

Based on my relativity, an ant travels at about one mile per hour. Based on the ant's relativity, some travel at about sixty miles per hour. Assuming both our now's are the same and we switched relativities, does the speed of light change or stay the same for me?

Sometimes in nature, one equals two. What kind of math is that?

As things change, so do answers, does math stay the same, even with possibility and probability?

Did evolution exist in the singularity or is evolution only applied to life?

What is the opposite of time? Could time and nothing be spinning opposite each other in every something creating now?

What is change? Is the change in now the same as the change in the sun or myself? Is now change, affect change or is separate? What about gold and diamonds, or other objects that don't appear to change, how do they fit?

Is relativity only important when we travel slower than now? If we could travel at now, is relativity still relevant?

Best Guess: Nothing looks like nothing, because we can't see faster than light. If nothing is time and faster than light, it should look like nothing to us. Is that why a black hole looks like nothing, is it spinning faster than light?

Best Guess: Like so much in nature, opposites exist together to form one. Eternity in distance and eternity in time, is wrapped together in nothing, and exist as one.

If light can only exist at a slower rate than now, is other something's restricted by different rates of time, which could create an effect of a floor and a ceiling? Could this cause spinning in quantum physics?

If now is change, why does change appear so slow? Why do we have to speed up a camera to see change?

Does light have a now, a connection to now just like everything else?

Best guess: If time does not exist in nothing and only in something, the fastest rate of now could exist in the smallest point of quantum physics, just above nothing. The rate of time or now is affected by what that something is, but the fastest rate of now remains in every something, at every state that something can possibly be. Could a black hole come close to allowing time to touch where no time exists, or different rates of time, creating a burst of energy?

Best guess: If opposites are true, then nothing is the opposite of something and nothing is in the universe. If eternity exists, then time is stopped or does not exist, and that possibly is what nothing is.

Best guess: Light is part of something, and like every something, can never be the same thing as nothing, that's why light and time are not the same. Time can exist thru or is nothing.

Best guess: The fastest rate of time, now, is fastest in, with or passing thru nothing. Nothing and time exist together in every something somehow, and that is how every something's now stays the same.

Can a rock floating in space ten trillion miles away affect me? Yes. Thought, which opens new possibilities and chances. Maybe nothing, maybe something, only future now and chances upon chances will tell.

When an event happens in now, is light created instantly in the same now, or does it take time for light to be created?

Do I think in now or just after now? If you touch me, the touch occurs in now. But my thought will never know until after now, because my thought is connected to all my senses, which take time after now to reach my thought. Thought occurs in now, but can only think in now's past. Thought that occurs without my senses, is that thought in now?

Is now the same rate as change and change creates light? If one element in me decays faster than another in me, is my rate of change two different rates or just one?

If there is only now, then the past is what now was, and the future is what now will be.

Is time and nothing independent of everything? Every something can affect another something in different ways, but is every something affected by time equally?

Without nothing, where would everything go?

Is there an all now, and what I see, is all now's history finally catching up to me?

If something occupies nothing, is nothing still there?

Can a black hole create a new galaxy and that is why they are in the center of almost every one, or is the galaxy creating the black hole?

Is a black hole a converter of everything into energy? What could force energy out from such intense gravity, or is energy successful in its escape?

Is light showing me what time would if time could?

If light isn't there, does time still exist there?

If I can see nothing, which would better explain it, math or logic?

My full understanding of math for physics: Nothing plus something equals everything.

Could there be infinity of nothing?

Could there be dark space because light can't get thru, or is it really nothing?

I like to think about nothing. Nothing fascinates me.

If infinity was once a single point, wouldn't that make infinity finite?

If space is nothing, it shouldn't exist, logically speaking.

Either the universe has always existed or was created. Either one confuses me, scientifically speaking.

I did not knowingly use anyone else's material. Sometimes, I can't remember if I thought it, read it or heard it. If it's yours, I sincerely apologize and will make the correction as soon as I know.

### My Other Sites

Back To Index

www.karagianniseleftherios.org Nice Thoughts, All Free, No Registration, No Ads, No Nothing (Isn't that something?) Read a thought, think a lifetime.

www.eleftherioskaragiannis.org My original music, I play guitar. Free to play, Free to download. No Registration, No Ads.

www.karagianniseleftherios.com Not so nice thoughts, other issues, politics. All Free, No Registration, No Ads, No Nothing (Isn't that something?) Read a thought, think a lifetime.

Every view, or chance, started with a special few, and only because of all of you, I am obligated to yell, THANK YOU!

Have fun and enjoy the beauty all around us. When needed, you have thought.

Don't believe just because someone tells you. Try to answer a question just to yourself.

Best wishes to you all!

### Send me an email: info@eleftherioskaragiannis.org

Privacy Policy: I will not share or give your email address or anything else. It's a private conversation (as far as I'm concerned) between us and only us.