Breaking down the building up

I have searched for 6 years to find what existing model of exogenisis, or initial state-ness of universe, might be similar to mine. There are actually a lot of ’em spread out over the surface of knowledge and speculation. One which I find interesting and compatible is Steinhardt and Turok’s take on a cyclic evolution. Before looking at their model, I’d like to stress that in my mind they are re-phrasing what is assumed to be the definite and absolute truth, and has been so for millennia. So I am not especially curious about how their, and similar, models will evolve theoretically, because I already know where they have to go. They must end up empty handed and with nothing but faith in the face of;
– Being
– Force
That is what Singularity is doing, and what follows is relativity. The scientific mind has never accepted that which is not caused by something else, and that’s as it should be. Science is about causality, or it cannot predict events and validate its ideas as being right or wrong. Since the authors are aiming at a possible truth that governs all the observational data, they will be ignored or ridiculed if they actually hack it. What is true cannot be disputed, and what is indisputable does not lend itself to any new hypothesis, and by that, any definite answer falls short of the requirements of scientific output; it does not generate any further questions and it cannot be falsified.

It is a technical paper to most people like me. I’m not educated in this level of math and physics, but I can read. I also can do logic and evaluate to some extent if a line of reasoning is coherent or self contradicting. I find this model very reasonable and coherent and I’m not about to find flaws and “wrongs”. What I’d like to do is to question where fundamental force is in this picture. You see, I’m not satisfied with notions of energy being force, and not with force as acting in-between branes or objects. The idea of anything in-between has plagued theory long enough methinks, and we always end up asking how that which is in-between x and y, and not part of x and/or y, can affect x and y at all. How does this force affect what it has no contact with? Logic has it that there must be connection to cause an effect, and nothing will happen for as long as a force is in-between. Likewise, if the force has contact with x and y, it is not in-between, but an aspect of a connective continuum. I suggest the latter is ultimately true for all of existence.

Some questions the advocates of this model need to answer is found here:

 However, there remain major open issues in the model. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch. Moreover, as with cosmic inflation, while the general character of the forces (in the ekpyrotic scenario, a force between branes) required to create the vacuum fluctuations is known, there is no candidate from particle physics.

I will draw you a very simple image of the Singular evolution that answers most of the basic questions conceptually. The take away message I offer is this:

Force is fundamental and constant.
Force is of rotation, and rotation is what causes the effects of energy.
The branes are liquid-like drops of essential action, a perfect fluid if you will. Force of rotation will prevent any such drop from remaining in an energetic rest state.
Release of forced potential is what closes any gaps and in-betweens.
Force is a fundamental quality of the elementary units. In fact, it is the only fundamental quality.

The picture is at the top of the post obviously. I spent 30 min. on trying to get it where it should be, but enough is enough. I guess I’ll never be able to picture my ideas to make ’em look credible LOL. Here’s the excellent article:

The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction

Authors: Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok

I hope you will find that what they suggest is a dualistic image of my singular image. I have one brane/drop which self-collides as it is forced to Project an energized surface of 2D space from a dead sphere which is a zero degrees imaginary line/axis in the invisible form of a perfectly symmetric sphere of action. The zero point state is “the bottom of the hill” towards which every action in the classical world of broken singularity tends to go. We observe this tendency as surface tension, and a flow towards lowest energy state. What counters this flow and allows for spatial eccentricity/space is force of rotation. So when authors have two 3D branes collide to generate a novel 4:th dimension, I have one 3D sphere of one dimensional time only which translates itself to a 2D surface with 4 directions in space. That’s how I have my dimensions define:
Time is the vertical aspect of horizontal space. Space is always in 4 directions.
Time relates to the momentary contraction/eccentricity of space, and thus to its momentary level of energy.

Believe me, if you let this image affect your thinking of fundamentals, problems will start to dissolve, one by one. A lot of thrilling scenarios start popping up. A lot of todays impossible problems can be ticked off and put away.

Have fun with it. Any questions are more than welcome.
The image is totally useless if it is true, but this is not about utility. It is about that which does and utilizes its “us” so that it learns about itself.
We might not have a will on our own, but something bigger seems to have that.
What if the many neurons of the one body realized what they are and began working in an orchestrated way, instead of interfering and even killing each other. What could the one body do then?
Generate a Garden of Eden for those who cooperate and unify their actions?
I suspect that’s actually true, and what the narratives are all about.

My two cents here is to offer a fundamental force of rotation (of the chakras) so life is preserved eternally and for free. I also offer conservation of energy as in perfect equilibrium, but it will increase and decrease in relation to the overall flatness of space. The flatter space, the more energized. The more spherical, the less energized and dark it appears.