Spinning singularities with a twist

In this post I will try to picture my idea of what singularities are and how they operate. I’m not saying “This Is So”. I’m suggesting “This Might Be It”. I have great confidence in my basic assumptions, but have totally revised the formality of it several times. If anything I suggest here is incompatible with observational data, I will do it again. My convenient ace up the sleeve is that the main point in my model defies observation. I’m fully aware this makes it “religion” to most people. I respect that opinion because it is essentially a valid point. But we might also ask ourselves if it is reasonable to dissmiss all non-empirical investigations as inherently flawed or “wrong”.

My position is that “religion” is to be understood as Re-Legion which implies a gathering of Many as to become One. It is not about dismissing the reality of subjects being unique to form and function. We all know that on a macro level, there are no two things being same thing. That’s just not true. But we also know that, at a micro level, these many subjective things have something fundamental in common. They all seem to originate from the same essence. They have a property of existence that we might call empirical, physical, existential, Buddhanature, eternal, (W-)holy or energetic. Whatever we prefer to name this commonality, it simply is. As long as it corresponds to an imagined “Everything”, that’s it.

Energy is it
God is it
Gravity is it
Consciousness is it

The crux with “Everything” is that it is impossible to point out as different from a reference point. Being Everything, how can it be related to something else? This domain of “Everything” is where religion plays a role. That is why religion can never prove its point empirically, while science can potentially prove all its Points. Science has infinitely many points to prove while religion only have one single point a.k.a. Everything. Contrary to what you might think, proving one point is way harder than proving a thousand points. That is because this one point includes all the others. It is the empty set of all sets. Inherently empty, while always present, the empty set cannot be proven by other means than observing its. Thus, religion is about the inherent emptiness of all things. I’m afraid that goes also for my model of singularity. What makes it a troublesome religion is that I contract God to reside within the tiniest forms of existence. That makes God a million Gods, all confined in their discrete singularity. A religion that gathers all parts by separating them will have few believers. So far, I’m alone… well, sort of “alone” in a relative sense.
A renegade Ego is perhaps a better label if one must be labelled.

Anyway, play around with my very un-scientific and counter-religious drawings. They are all yours, all ours. We’re in this as many ones. May all make their little effort  for the benefit of all sentient beings; past, present, future and unknown. All is connected.
Last but not least – have some fun creating the Universe.

By the way, I believe the paper on a “wild theory” is basically pointing in the same direction. It just names and arranges the concepts and parts a bit differently. Not sure authors would agree with me, but I agree with then anyway.

Wild Theory: 5-Dimensional Black Holes Could Break Laws of Physics



                                  Not One, Not Two

In the above fig. zero points are at origo and 12 o’clock/North pole. The relevance of breaking the upper limit of system energy is made clear by an experiment done 2013 at Max Planck Institute. Read the article and imagine singularities to be “the lanscape” in which the spheres roll. In the text, increased energy is located to the spheres, not the landscape, but my model inverts this to picture the spheres/particles/waves as the flow of energy caused by the fundamental landscape/field in which they exist. So as when singularities generate increased force at their perimeters, the gap-field between them is filled with increased amounts of energy. Contrary to the Boltzmann distribution, where spheres eventually stop rolling and gather as “death by entropy”, my spheres are created and propagated by the fundamental force of singularities. In this scenario, there is no heat loss, no friction and infinite negentropy. I claim this landscape to be the Reality of Everything. The energy/spheres enforced by this landscape of singularities will make up all of our empirical reality, while the landscape as the fundamental cause of observables will remain impossible to investigate directly. That is because the spheres cannot probe their own ground. Energy arises out of the causal singularities and have therefore no way of exchanging information with its origin. This would seem obvious, based on logic and common sense alone, but I fear scientific minds reject it never the less. A theory the denies the possibility of experimantal proof is not likely to gain any attraction, but be regarded as “religion”. The quest for “gravity” will continue in-between the objects. A gravity that is an undetecable singularity which causes all energy (by contracting and expanding) will for some time remain a “hidden variable”. The only way to “see” it is to have your mind make a quantum leap from quantity to quality. To be properly understood, Everything must not only be quantified, but also qualified. To learn this, one needs a qualified mind.
Meditation is a good method to qualify your mind.
Don’t reject the value of enlightenment.
It’s not religion, but fundamental physics.

A Singularity


Many Singularities

I see now that I’ve made sperms of the energy flow. That was not intended, but perhaps an apt description anyway? In reality, the energy flow would look more like a grid of cubicles forming geometric structures of various densities and charge. Remember also that the singularities have an extreme spin rate and will contiously adjust their angels and positions as to generate the ocean of quantum dots “seemingly popping in and out of existence” which make up the observable universe.

The initial state is one of such a singularity. It has no space, but grows as a place of increasing force. It has no energy, since energy is caused to arise at the event horizons of two neighbour singularities. It has no velocity, since a singularity does not propagate in space, but grows potentially in place. This place is what we conventionally think of as “center of gravity”. However extreme its energy potential is, it will not occupy conventional space. How its place appear can be studied by observing states of realized energy at its event horizon. The singularity itself cannot be observed for reasons mentioned above.
What it does have is Time.

If you want to know what time is, this is it. Forget all you believe yourself to know about time. Time does not slow down in a singularity, neither does it speed up. Time has nothing to do with speed, as a singularity has no velocity. Our mistake is to imagine time as related to an observer that is either still or in motion, and to various positions of objects in relation to each other. A singularity itself has none of that. It is without dimensions and cannot have properties that require space to even exist.

In non-relativistic reality that is ultimately real, “time” is the energy potential inherent in a growing event horizon of a singularity. There is no clock running inside it, but there is the fundamental cause of clocks. There is only one single force and it rotates expansively and contractively as to generate an increasing potential for energy that is either expansive or contractive. In this, there is the potential for Everything.
There is something causing our clocks to appear as they do.
They radiate the same circumference, day and night. And while not moving one inch, there is something continously increasing. To reset the clock, we must apply “work” to make it stop. If we don’t, it just keeps going.

There will be more on Singular time…in time.



The question of Mu

In Zen here is a famous koan known as Mu. A koan is sort of a riddle that a teacher gives a student to work on. These riddles have no definite answers as regular questions have. The purpous of a koan is to break conventional though patterns and, in a way, short circuit mind in order to access knowledge behind reasoning. It is a way of studying reality as it is when not reasoned about or understood by a human observer.

A monk asked Master Chao-chou, “Has a dog the Buddha Nature or not?” Chao-chou said, “Mu!”

That’s it. One question, one answer. Case closed.

There are of course numerous interpretations of what Mu really means. I suggest the point made by the master is this – mind will never stop asking questions, and the sooner you realize this, the sooner you know the mind, and knowing mind opens the door to knowing Everything. So why say Mu? Mu is not an answer to the monks question. Mu is a negation of the questioning itself. It doesn’t answer that particular question. Instead it answers the natural function of mind to persistently put reality into question. Mu is just another way of saying “God did it”. It is the end of further questioning. Now, the Master, being a Master, didn’t Believe in God or any other diety. Knowing mind fully, he didn’t Believe in anything mind told him. Neither did he reject anything of minds content. To the Master of Reality, there is ultimately nothing being wrong or right. There is just what is. Instead of saying God or Buddhanature is Everything, including dogs, he says “There is no definite answer to any of your questions, so stop asking”. The message is this – if you stop asking questions that require an answer where reality is reduced to separate parts with inherent properties, you might just realize that there’s a whole reality that includes all seemingly subjective and unique phenomena. You may be enlightened by the fact that reality is conceptual and understandable only to mind itself, but unknowable when absent minded.

But there’s trap in this, waiting to catch mind red handed. The reflexive response of mind when “understanding” Mu is to, yet again, trying to understand it. Mind cannot help itself from repeating the act of questioning. Mind Thinks – Oh, so reality is something else than how it appears to my mind. My experience is not of reality but of illusion.

No you don’t. You will never “get it”. You missed the point of Mu. Mu said “Beware of questioning reality because that habit of mind will keep it from knowing the essence of it”. Instead of “getting it”, you immediately questioned the reality of minds experience. You stupid fool!

Mu is relentlessly wrecking everything you believe to be important aspects of knowledge. If you ask “What mind”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is real”, you miss the point.
If you ask “What is the point”, you miss the point.

You see, mind has to keep asking questions, never accepting a definite answer. That’s the very function of human mind. It is not wrong or “illusory” at all. It is perfectly normal and fully functional. You need not do anything about this response/function of mind. But if you want to know reality in its most ultimate sense, you must realize this mind function first hand. You must learn the essence of mind in order to understand how it “knows” reality. Mind gains knowledge by not accepting input as experienced, but by questioning reality as it presents itself in the experience of mind.

This is why a Theory of Everything can never be accepted by anyone else than s/he who puts it on the table. Imagine gravity being the cause of vortices in condensed matter. Let’s say that is essentially the creative force behind Everything. Whatever it is, someone will inevitably respond – Ok, but what causes that to happen? If reality is such that the ultimate cause cannot be caused itself, mind will never settle for that kind of Everything. It will keep asking – Has a dog Buddhanature?


Where does the vortex go?

I claim vortices, as in condensed matter, to be the nanogenerators of new energy. I believe continous negentropy on this level to be the basis of matter and the entropy of matter on a higher level. Thus, the measure of entropy is the measure of negentropy.
Not being a scientist myself, I’m in debt to those who do the actual work in this area. All I can do is read their papers and try make it sensible to me.

I know at the universe grows, I just don’t know how to convince others it is so. The reason I still keep trying is that this truth of mine is valuable to us all. Assuming reality grows would be the biggest gane changer ever, and I can see our common knowledge heading that way. I’m delighted and amazed at how fast things are goinf at the moment. People in general have no idea of this since popular science still is educating the masses in the Standard Model. But behind the scenes, there is greatness in the making. I will never write a credible paper or give an interview. I just root for the ones who eventually will break the news.

To show how my mind works, we will take a brief look at vortices. These swirls are known to appear in condensed matter physics at extremely low temperatures, close to zero Kelvin. It seems as if cooled matter becomes bosons (so called force carriers) and resist any attempts to hold them down completely. They simply swirl out of our hands.

Here is wikipedias idea of vortices:

Irrotational vortices

In the absence of external forces, a vortex usually evolves fairly quickly toward the irrotational flow pattern, where the flow velocity u is inversely proportional to the distance r. For that reason, irrotational vortices are also called free vortices.

For an irrotational vortex, the circulation is zero along any closed contour that does not enclose the vortex axis and has a fixed value, \Gamma, for any contour that does enclose the axis once. The tangential component of the particle velocity is then u_{\theta} = \Gamma/(2 \pi r). The angular momentum per unit mass relative to the vortex axis is therefore constant,  r u_{\theta} = \Gamma/(2 \pi).

However, the ideal irrotational vortex flow is not physically realizable, since it would imply that the particle speed (and hence the force needed to keep particles in their circular paths) would grow without bound as one approaches the vortex axis.

As I will explain in another post,  the value of π should  set to 3, without the fractions. 3 is the basic value while fractions are effects of the rotation. I also assume the basic rotation of reality be a circle with radius 2. That is because such a circle has information value equal to area and perimeter which both are 4π. That means a disc of radius 2 has a total information value of 24, 4×3 in area plus 4×3 at perimeter. I figure such a basic disc is nice to have when building both time and space. It gives us a fundamental unit for one full day of 24 hours and 360 degrees of space to move around in. To me, 3 directions are not enough starting at a center point.

The above equation would then read: uθ=⌈/12 and ruθ=⌈/6.

Whatever rotates around the axis is allocated to 12 times and 6 directions.
2: up right
4: down right
6: down
8: down left
10: up left

And about the non-realizable part of it, I imagine this event to be as real as it gets. I assume there is a bound which is the max energy of the unit. When that level is reached, the unit inverts. Contraction at center jumps to perimeter while edge of vortex goes to center. By this, the unit is able to pop a fraction of energy (photon/electron).

Planck’s h is total informational value 24 of  unit. If we have it spin one full turn, we get Dirac’s h-bar. What pops out of it is ruθ = 1/6 i.e 24/6 = 4.
That would be enough for the unit to spawn a new unit with a quarter of its value;
90 degrees angle
3 hours (or 15 minutes/sec’s)

\hbar = \frac{h}{2 \pi} .          Unit emission =  24/2×3 =4, if you prefer we can say 4D.

The energy of this emission would be E = \hbar \omega ,  and with ω = 2πν we get:
Energy = 4×6 =24. That’s good since it corresponds to the the mother units initial value of 24. So we generate new energy while keeping track of proportions.

This is of course an analogue to what happens at a Black Hole. But I prefer to picture that event as a double disc.

The picture has no frame

In a the Singular system S, comprised entierly of singularities ss, there is no reference frame, no background or media in relation to which the Sss are functional units.
S is 1 system without separate or isolated s. Every s identity is formed and reformed in reference to its immediate context of ss.
What frames an s unit is other ss at the informational nodes of s. There’s no need to add any dimensions or functions to this Single of singularities. All ss are themselves valuable points that are continously reevaluated according to present contextual values.
Everything can be created based on such valuable singularities.
They are the discretness of smooth Systematic evolution. But they make up the total System, the background, dimensions and phases of energy.
They are the grid and the lattice.

Math says points are of zero dimensions. That might be correct. So is Universe dimensionless? Of itself, it is. There’s likely no reference point to S so who can tell how big or old S is?
But being of multiple ss, there is dimensionality or dimensioness of subjective relations of S.
The S evaluates various geometries/formations that multipels of ss can generate. These are subjective forms of information and will exhibit unique functions and formalities. Among these formalities, commonly refered to as objects, there’s indeed variables of space and time, as well as of speed, trajectories, density, charge etc.
But none of the variables resides outside the ss. These variable values are all within the valuable ss units.
On the level of S, they appear and act somewhat stable and continous.
There is only one point and it is the generation of new points.

This IS the point.

Superfluid – but where and when?

  The persistent idea that everything must be a thing continues to create problems in physics. It seems like I am a singularity myself, claiming the belief in a priori thing-ness is a misconception. No matter how close to reality a theory comes, it falls short of the ToE because of this belief.

It usually goes like this:

There is things we can observe empirically – check
There are smaller things inside big things – check
There are even smaller things inside small things – check
All things move in relation to each other – check
All things have inherent motion – check
Being is particular and massive – check
Motion is wavelike and vibrational – check
What we can observe is particular motion – check
Reality (a) is, and (b) changes – check
Where is reality – ?
When does it change – ?

So we have theories that tries to explain spacetime. We still don’t know how the particular motion of being is carried out, because we can’t seem to find in what media/background it moves. We can clearly observe that things propagate through space, but we have no idea (or too many ideas) what it propagates through. So we look for that “something”.

A popular concept of this media is aether. This is an attractive idea since it implies an existence of something that is spread out everywhere in space. Perhaps it is what constitutes space itself? The other day I found one of these aether theories, Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT). This is very close indeed. It could potentially serve as a ToE. Thing is, that goes for most other theories as well, even the soon to crash Standard Model. They are all right, but they have one flaw in common. All assume reality to be of being only. No one seems to know what’s coming in the be-coming of reality.

This comes as no surprise, because scientific method requires “being” as some thing to observe. It cannot investigate the unseen “change”, only what it is that is changed. We must realize the difference between; 1. Observing what changes 2. Observing what changes The first is looking at an object that has motion. The second is trying to see what causes the object to move. One is effect, the other cause. Can you realize this is not irrelevant?

Imagine finding what causes change. Wouldn’t that be great? Perhaps that is the mysterious graviton? Now, when you find it, before you go to Stockholm for the big prize, tell me if this cause of change is inherently still or if it moves. If it is still, tell me how it can cause anything to do anything. If it moves, tell me what makes it move. You see, the first is impossible and the second is infinite regress. Cancel the tickets my friend. You’re not going anywhere by doing this.

The aether we’re looking for is inside the being, not outside. It is the inherent motion that comes with every thing. It is everything inside every thing. It is the cause of vortices in the condensate/superfluid. It is the cause of rotation, orbits, waves and trajectories of things. It is the some of all things. You can never detect the some, only the thing. The thing is never a definite thing of itself. It is always some-thing. It is the formless within form, the Sunyata of Buddhist philosophy.

So to the question of what mediates the motion of things, the answer is – the inherent motion of things. We might just dig up the old Greeks and give the prize to them, or Nagarjuna. They had it right then already, but no condensed matter labs to prove their point. The point is – there is only points, and they cannot be observed. The point is causing contraction and expansion. The points are what makes up the universe. They cause energy, as negative and positive, to travel from point to point creating effects as mass, waves, particles, fluids, gas, tissue etc. There are no objects pushing each other around, only subjective values of contraction/expansion causing effects of space and time as well as “motion”. No thing moves about, but something always moves about. That is everything.

Aether is a valid concept, but it is not spread out everywhere.
The aether is the “with” within every thing.
Everything is exactly what it looks like, but the other way round.
We are the outside of inside the universe.

It starts a singularity and it grows singularities.
Where is the point of space.
When is the change of point value in time.
Motion is not in a superfluid.
Motion is superfluid.
Universe is an ensamble of superfluid singularities generating growth in free space.


The reality of fictitious force

Trying to make sense of reality is not easy for as long as we have faith in fiction and fantasy. One such fantasy is the belief in an observer as who controls variables. It is believed that if we freeze the observer and the background, then we will know the motion/change of an object X. One way to freeze observer/background is to know the nature of both, so if a background factor, for example “spacetime”, is assumed to affect X, the the observer/scientist will adjust its observation accordingly. In doing so, observer and background are known and controlled so observational data will be of object only. The idea is that the inherent property of X should not be confused with properties of background and observer.

Albeit a requirement for scientific method to be practiced, I claim it to be a useful fiction which obscures the nature of reality. We seem to agree that reality is never totally still, but always in various degrees of change. Look at the image below and imagine none of the 3 parts to be still. In the upper inertial frame, the red observer/dot is not fixed to the rotation of the background disc. How the red dot moves, we don’t know, but it is not glued to the motion of background more than the black dot/object is. If the red observer manages to keep a fixed position, the black object will hit it straight in the face. It is funny to imagine an observation to happen that way. Perhaps it does?


By Hubi, German wikipedia.



The lower non-inertial frame is how our human mind, as observers, responds to the scenario. This is how X appears when assuming observer and background to be controlled for. Most likely, this controlling is not only done explicitly is experimental settings, but by default in all “mental” settings. My guess is that psychophysics can answer how this is automated in sensory perception. But I’m looking at reality as it is, without anyone looking at it, so the upper frame is closer to reality, unrelated to the eyes of an observer mind.

For now, I’d just like to correct the misinterpretation of Coriolis and centrifugal as fictitious forces. They are apperances of the singular force there is – Gravity.
Gravity is contractive and rotational. There is no other force, only effects e.g. spin, charge, mass, trajectories, kinetic/potential energy, radiance, space, velocity, exponential growth, uncertainty, particles, time, geometries ad infinitum. All there is comes from rotational gravity.

A way of looking at the discs, behind their apperance to an observer, is to imagine the disc to be either black or empty of objects/parts. It is a rotating singularity that contracts. After 1/4 turn (90 degrees), there is a perturbation of the rotating gravity. That would be a bump on the disc at 6 o’clock as the black object hits the perimeter. Unfortunate for us, the singularity as a “simple system for which a mathematical solution is known” is also an essential singularity which is “especially unmanageable”. So this perturbation is hard to describe by theories of perturbation.

What we see is basically “nothing” as the fundamental cause of “everything”. The singularity does not communicate with observation, because it is causal. As causal, it cannot be affected. A fundamental cause is by definition unaffected by context. Instead it is the cause of context. From this position, it makes perfect sense to say it is mathematically “unmanageable”. It is also reasonable to believe gravity itself to remain the chief hidden variable.

What we do see is how these “bumps” in discrete singularities of rotational gravity generates “waves” along the edges/horizon. There will be vibrations of certain wavelengths, generated at certain frequencies. These vibrations are what we experience as “energy”. This energy is Everything.
This is my theory of it.

What is This

Throughout my posts I will often use the word This. When I do, it is to emphasize the reality that you and me have as “experience”, exactly as it is right here, right now. This is what generates all our ideas, theories, patterns of thought, emotions and behavior. Everything is all of This. When we point at an object over “there”, and say there it is, it is still This. Without This, there would be no objects anywhere, no observers, no pointing and no looking.

This is “reality”.
This is “existence”.

I prefer to say This because it connects to the subjective experience. If we say “everything” mind usually thinks – Everything is not possible to know. No one can experience and understand Everything. Everything is too big to even imagine. Same goes for saying “reality”, and now we add arguments about what is actually “real” and what is “illusion”. Before we know it, there is a lecture on epistemology.

This cannot be argued with. This is your continous experience happening in the body. It doesn’t matter if it’s big, small, fantasy, fact, partial, fleeting, wierd, true, pleasant, horrible, nonsensical, dreamlike, common, distorted, psychotic, valuable, idiosynchratic, precise or unbeliavable.
This is what the mind observes and responds to. This is your experience, not the experience of an african river or of a penguine diving for fish. Those subjects have other experiences of This. What all subjects, all different forms of universal matter, have in common is the responding to This.

It is important to stress the fact that This does not “mean” anything. “Meaning” is a function of intelligent mind, not a property of This. This might be a sunset, but what This sunset “means” is up to the intelligent observer to decide. A sunset doesn’t even mean that daytime is soon over, because that is only relatively true. In reality, there is just a sun and a planet, and the seem to move in particular ways.
That’s what This is.
Very precise.
Spot on.

There is this guy Tony Parsons who has a funny way of dealing with This. He has written a book called The Open Secret and travels around talking about This. When someone asks – Well then, what exactly is “this”, Tony usually answers – It is This! That is pretty annoying to intelligent mind because it is completely useless information. The answer doesn’t help you understanding This at all, and this is the point Tony is constantly making. Experience, as it is, cannot be understood rationally. It can only be experienced. When you analyze it, the experience is already gone, and now you’re analyzing the memory content of mind. Doing so is of course yet another experience, provided you are mindful of what happens. But if you try to understand the experience of analyzing an experience, there is suddenly a new experience. That of “trying to understand the experience of …”, you get the point I hope.

This is impossible to analyze and understand, not because it is illusory or unknowable. On the contrary, it is precisely the knowable reality of This which makes it an “open secret”.  It is what actually happens, as it happens. The “as it happens” is central to This and to understanding why it can’t be analyzed in and of itself. This is a process that simply does not stop as to be defined as “this” or “that”. Freezing snapshots of reality is what mind has to do in order to understand it. Without these definite snapshots, no science is possible. Without defining experience as of “this” and “that”, we can hardly communicate properly. Our very identity of being Me depends on a stable entity that has the experience of a changing reality.

This is long before good and bad, true or false. This is simply what This is.
This is what we are, and what Everything is.
Everything is always This.

So here is Tony’s take on This. You don’t have to agree on whatever you may find “conceptually incoherent” or contradicting known facts. What he is trying to communicate is that This is not is relation to reality. This is reality as it Is. In reality, there is concepts, incoherence, contradiction, knowledge and facts. This is ultimately all-inclusive and totally for free. And yes, it is also useless.