With a little help from Pythagoras

One way of converting 1 to 0 and 0 to 1 is to put Pythagoras theorem in a sphere and let it spin. Goes like this:

a^2 + b^=c^
Let a be the axis of the sphere, and b the radius.
Let axis a be a vertical 1 and b the 0 horizon.
Let a decrease from 1 to 0 Let b increase from 0 to 1

1^2+0^2           =1               sqrt(1) = 1
-.75^2+.25^2   =-.5             sqrt(-.5) = 0.7071067811865475i
-.5^2+.5^2       =0                sqrt(0) = 0
-.25^2+.75^2   =.5              sqrt(.5) = 0.7071067811865475
0^1+1^2          =1                sqrt(1) = 1

So what’s so special with this sequence? Well, what’s special to me might be irrelevant to you so it’s your call really. To me it says:
Imaginary/Invisible spherical equilibrium of 1
is less invisible as the 1 imaginary axis is compressed to -.75 by horizontal tension
and when axial compression -.5 equals horizontal ex-tension .5, there is energized equilibrium which increases in empirical visibility
to the extent where 0 imaginary aspect is to be found at horizon 1.

…and by this, we have generated a real plane out of an imaginary sphere, so 1i has translated itself to a real 1. As I have suggested in other posts, this is not some end state of the function. Axial compression, all the way to 0 “length” does not imply there is something lost of the unit. Spatial length is only horizontal, not vertical. We can assign “gravitational potential” to the axis and know that it is 0 at the moment of sphere, and 1 at the moment of disc.
That being potentially so, the above sequence will invert at c^2 = real 1, and the functional unit will then become increasingly smaller and de-charged. That is how reality is quantized by self-generated “gravity”.

I can also see that there are two distinct forms of equilibrium. The conventional equilibrium would be at -.5^2+.5^2=0. That is, when kinetic energy .5 equals potential energy -.5. This is the equilibrium in the classical world. But the classical world is not of a single unit as in this case. The classical world is of parity, and in a many body system, one thing absolute is, by definition, everything relative. So the other equilibrium, and in my opinion the far more interesting one, is the spherical one where there is no energy at all. This is a grey state of neither extension, nor compression. It is essentially dead to the empirical world of observation. This is when 1 is a purely imaginary 1i. In relation to the mod4 of imaginary numbers we can see that whenever i is raised to the power of even numbers e.g. -4, -2, 0, 2, 4 etc, it equals 1 or -1, but raised to odd numbers e.g. -3, -1, 1, 3 etc, it equals i or –i.
So how come the real power of the imaginary part rise only to the power of equals? Well, if my model is correct, it has to be so on the most fundamental level of single quantum mechanics/functions/operations. That is because any instance of kinetic charge has at its (invisible) center an equal amount of compression. So the power of 2 comes hand in hand in any realized, empirically detectable object. That is not to say there is no power of oddities, because obviously there is . Point is that such powers are of relatives and not absolutes, so instead of 1 or -1 we get i or -i. It is real values for sure, but they do not belong to a specific unit that can be empirically defined. It is more like “field” values.

Anyways, that’s what I find tasty food for thought because it plays very well with my imagination. But others work with other ideas, and perhaps you will find other valuables than I do.

Since the number 0.7071067811865475 turned up, both as i when function is ¼ real and as real when function is ¼ imaginary, I googled it and found something slightly interesting, even for someone who knows next to nothing about math.

For an example of an operator that throws its basis Kets into superpositions, here’s a function emulating a Hadamard operator:

julia> @def_op ” h | n > = 1/√2 * ( | 0 > + (-1)^n *| 1 > )”

h (generic function with 1 methods)

 

julia> d” h * | 0 > ”

Ket{KroneckerDelta,1,Float64} with 2 state(s):

0.7071067811865475 | 0

0.7071067811865475 | 1

 

julia> d” h * | 1 > ”

Ket{KroneckerDelta,1,Float64} with 2 state(s):

0.7071067811865475 | 0 ⟩

-0.7071067811865475 | 1 ⟩

 

Make of it what you will. There is something of importance going on there.
That’s what I think.

Meta math of Something

I found a book by Gregory Chaitin called Meta Math: the quest for Omega. I haven’t read it yet. Just had a glance at the overall picture. It lured my mind back to the case of singularity, which I have been fortunate enough to forget about for the past weeks. So per usual it had me repeating my simple mantra once more. Same message as always, albeit in a seemingly new package. I will post this now and hopefully forget it again. All the hours and effort I’ve dedicated to communicating this one simple idea has so far been a total waste of time. Sure I’ve been intellectually occupied and energized by it, but playing around intellectually also should lead to utility for all. Not only entertainment for me.

Before my rambling, I’d like to comment on a quote from Chaitin’s book:

Because in order to be able to fool yourself into thinking that you

have solved a really fundamental problem, you have to shut your eyes and

focus on only one tiny little aspect of the problem. Okay, for a while you

can do that, you can and should make progress that way. But after the brief

elation of “victory”, you, or other people who come after you, begin to realize

that the problem that you solved was only a toy version of the real problem,

one that leaves out significant aspects of the problem, aspects of the problem

that in fact you had to ignore in order to be able to get anywhere

  • There is no separate “me” that has a “self” which to fool. Misconception from self-reference rules the game. No matter how much Gödel “You” have studied. “You” will never get it right, because “You” are the very incompleteness of the system. Without a functional reference point, not being the system itself, the system cannot be completely described.
  • Fundamentally, there is no problem to solve. What seems a problem arises from the fact that the previous point is actually true. Not realizing/accepting that a relative perspective is required for any observation, that causes problems. Not realizing/accepting that if a singularity, an initial state of the universe cannot be understood in relative/observational terms, that causes problems.
  • Saying one solution is of a “toy” problem, while other solutions are of “real” problems is relevant if, and only if, you know exactly what discriminates one from the other. What if the “real” problems all have relative solutions, and the “toy” problem has but one absolute solution? What if the “Toy” is always one and the same, while “reality” is never the same?
  • What if “ignoring” relative aspects is not bad at all in studying a possibly absolute aspect? In fact, how could it otherwise be possible to understand 1 absoulte truth if you didn’t eliminate relative variables. What Chaitin calls “ignorance” is instead the controlling of variables in a certain thought experiment.

This is what I’d like to figure out:

Assume a quantum of action as such Assume it can be imagined as the most fundamental form of sphere Assume this spherical quantum of action has the intrinsic quality of rotation Let this quantum of rotational action be the one and only force there is.

Assume the geometry of sphere to be a momentary state Assume that, at this particular moment, the quantum of action is, at least theoretically, in perfect equilibrium, similar to a Planckian Grey Body average. Assume a physical body in perfect equilibrium to be energetically dead, and therefore impossible to detect/measure. Ergo, a grey body as such cannot be dimensioned and is thus immesurable and nondimensional. Define this sphere moment as the moment of 0 measurable quantity as well as 0 measurable quality. Let this particular moment be the true and factual number 0. That is, the grey body as such is the fact of Something, but impossible to detect/measure as a certain, empirical fact definable as being a particular object (wave, particle, quark, gluon, spinor, foam, tensor etc). It is not Nothing, but it is not a Thing. It is, in relation to externals, Something empirically invisible. We can perhaps term it “Background” or “Grid” or “Hidden Variable”.

Let the force of rotation, which is the fundamental action and thus not caused by some other action, cause itself to change its geometry. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its axis of rotation being compressed, and thus to decrease in “length” from the momentary value of 0. Assume rotation of the sphere form have its equator, perpendicular to its axis, being extended, and thus to increase in circumference from the momentary value of 0. Imagine the gray, spherical equilibrium, by means of its own rotational force/action, to gradually reform itself to increasingly flatter ellipsoid, and to do so up to the critical instance when axis is maximally compressed and circumference is maximally extended. Assume the value of vertical compression to be gravitational potential as “magnetism”. Assume the value of horizontal extension to be kinetic energy as “electricity/charge”. Define this disc moment as the moment of 1 measurable quantity as well as 2 measurable qualities. Assume these 2 qualities of compression/extension corresponds to the concepts of time/space as well as position/velocity.
Let the moment of maximum extension/compression equal the concept of zero entropy, as the opposite moment of perfect equilibrium. Imagine the opposite to a mathematical 0 is the 1 quantity of +1-1 qualities. Imagine grey randomness reforming itself to black/white order of duality. Imagine equilibrium enforcing itself to become zero entropy. Imagine force to cause energy, in and of itself. Imagine rotation to cause electromagnetism.

So, can such a Something be figured out mathematically? I don’t know. It seems we need to reconsider the ontology of numbers, and most of all the numbers 0 and 1. I suspect these symbolic representations of physical reality must be properly physicalized. Perhaps our quest for the math of reality must be complemented with a quest for the physics of math?

I suggest the number 0 represents a symmetric equilibrium in the shape of sphere. Being equilibrium, it cannot be interacted with. It neither reflects, nor does it absorb. It is not likely to transmit either. I suspect that any thing contacting the 0 sphere becomes it, instantly. I suggest that, enforced by rotation, the 0 sphere generates a gradual emergence of quantity, a continuous increase of empirical reality in the shape of “space”. That is, the equatorial bulge, which gradually becomes the perimeter of a flat disc, is the very essence of empirical reality as it emerges, seemingly “out of nothing”. That “nothing” is nothing but its momentary state and trait of spherical equilibrium. This continuous increase of somethings horizontal perimeter is the emergence of an increasingly wider and flatter quantity of 1. This variable quantity of the (empirical) 1 comes with a proportional increase of two seemingly opposite qualities, because just as the perimeter charge is tensed out by force of rotation, so is the axis of rotation compressed. So in this scenario, magnetism is gravitational potential which increases in the exact amount that kinetic charge increases. Thus, electromagnetism is not a fundamental force, but an inevitable effect caused by the fundamental force of rotation. Not being a mathematician, far from it, I allow myself to be stupid enough to suggest; There are no natural numbers except for 0 and 1. 0 is a spherical equilibrium as a special case in a sequence/oscillation that is a constant flux. Most likely, the only true 0 as of a perfectly symmetric quantum of action is only possible/factual at a universal state of singularity, and only so at a particular instance and not as a stable state. Similar to the clock on the wall never “being” 0 or 12 (or any other number of times), but just an empirical manifestation of certain moments. The actual ticking of “time” is probably related to the instances of phase inversions, so reality might “tick” at each “time” the extension of “space” reaches its maximum length/circumference. If so, time increases as space increases, and it does so in continuous fashion. So if we choose to set time 0 along the equator of spherical equilibrium, then increase of time equals increase of space as the equator is tensed out by rotational force. Then time stops at the moment our quantum of action is maximally extended horizontally as well as maximally compressed vertically. Then the poles (both ends of axis) goes “Tick”, and gravitational potential is released bidirectionally. As the unit is thus relaxed, the amount of energy built up from projection of space/horizon will be conjected back towards 0. This is the phase of propotional reversal of spacetime. I suspect the clock of reality says very little of this, because this is how it is quantized as to (almost) disappear. The fully conjected unit is at its lowest energy state and will be hard to even detect. I think this might be what we think of as “Neutrinos”. They don’t travel at all. They are already everywhere. Flickering moments, close to equilibrium.

So how can this explain, for instance, the notion of complexity? Well, imagine a universal singularity to be a definite limit to what is otherwise a true Nothing-ness. Apart from Nothing-ness, there is only the universal singularity. This singularity, as pictured above, is never a stable state. Reason is fundamental force of rotation and how that enforces the singularity/quantum to reform spherical equilibrium into a 2D disc of electro/magnetism and back to spherical equilibrium. This sequence is likely to render the singularity a wobbling instability which, after certain moments/times of phase inversions, causes the unit to break in 2. NOTE: This is not 2 as we conventionally treat the quantity of 2. Keep in mind that before the breaking of unit into units, the notion of 1 is not applicable. To define singularity as the quantity 1, we must have a reference quantity that is not-1, e.g 0, .5, 2 etc. There is no such reference external to a universal singularity. It is more truthlike to say “0<1>0” breaks into “0<1>0<1>0” or “0+1-1” breaks into “0+1-10+1-1”. The latter seems nonsensical of course, but then having 0 generate +1-1 all by itself also seems nonsensical.

From this moment and onwards, the motion of a unit (now a units) is dependent on context. This increases the complexity of the now system of units. Now what was absolute singularity can be understood as relative duality/parity. Let these 2 units break into 4, and there is increase in restrictions of motion. So while each following breaking of units allow for increased complexity in how they can oscillate in various patterns, it also means that each and every one unit is dependent on an increasing amount of other units. Since laws of conservation naturally follows the suggested scenario, we can also be sure no single unit can ever have escape velocity enough the separate from its origin. This is good, because it keeps reality in place and makes the infamous heat-death impossible. It allows for a lot of ideas that basically makes sense of what seems a mystery. Local? Yes! Nonlocal? Yes! Empirical? Yes! Hidden? Yes! Irreversible? Yes! Reversible? Yes!

Simple as it seems, how could we entertain our intellectual desire for complex problems to solve? You know, intelligence can never accept what might be objectively simple and absolute. Intelligence generates questions, not answers. Answers are for religion, right? So being a schmuck with numbers and equations, I offer anyone interested to flesh out in detail the numbers corresponding to one single sequence of the imagined motion of singularity. How to do it is up to anyone’s preference. I can only suggest some crude pointers from my layman’s perspective.

projectivephaseqspinHere’s an example to play around with. This complex image is not following the agreed upon rules of course. It assumes a base value that, instead of an infinitely small point, is regarded as an actual point/force/quanta which is irreducilble and thus the physical limit of spatial size. It assumes reality can disappear as “space”, not because of size but as an effect of geometry. That is, if reality at hand is a perfect sphere, then it is in a state of equilibrium, and if so it is undetectable. No matter its assumed size or the nature of measuring device, a state of equilibrium does not interact with external context because it is energetically dead. Another way is to say; a sphere cannot be detected “in” empirical space because it has no spatial extension. Only as force of rotation causes the equator – Its Own Equator – to bulge, and the axis – Its Own Axis – to compress does the unit have the property of spatial extension. Nota bene; with the quality of horizontal extension (space) comes, perpendicular to the equatorial horizon, an equal amount of axial compression (times).
I didn’t add the following phase of conjection because it’s the same but in reverse. Just let the disc rotate as before and the compression at center will now increase vertical values bidirectionally from -.5-.5 to 00, and by that horizontal values uniformly from +.25+.25+.25+.25 to 0000.
To avoid a static oscillation and allow for the unit to break, we must add knowledge of hydrodynamics and how the inevitable wobble/instability of a rotating point of gas/liquid plays out. That’s way beyond me, but other will know for sure. I know they do because there are tons of papers about it.
That will probably show the cause of positive and negative curvature of space. My assumption is that projective space is positive as the sphere is flattened out, and that conjective space is negative as the gravitational potential at the axis is released.
Just feeding the crazy minds here.
Don’t believe a word of it.
You want reality as it really is?
Practice mindfulness, relentlessly, and you will eventually learn that there was nothing hidden ever. When reality hides, it does so by being Everything LOL…..

 

Have a wonderful weekend!

EDIT/ADD-IT: When saying the system needs a functional reference point in order to describe itself, I am not saying there actually is such a reference point. There is not. Not in the universe as described here. My image denies the existence of separation as well as of many universes. There is One Universe and This is It.
Never the less, human mind function seems able to describe reality to a very large extent. In fact, all the way from the current state of affairs and back to the so called Planck Epoch, but beyond that it seems unable to “get it”. Religion solves that by saying “God”, while the scientific solution is to say “There will forever be new questions to deal with”. Same same but opposite. None carries explanatory power.
The cool thing with human mind is the ability to operate/compute/respond as if it was indeed a functional reference point. It reasons and acts as if there was a “me” that “had” a mind of my own, able to look at reality. This as if- perspective is what makes intelligence possible. Without it, there is just the One Reality thinking, knowing, questioning, experiencing and ignoring all by itself. These internal activities/events occur in the momentary forms of “humans” and “brains”. But there is only One which has “humans” and “brains”, and that is the One Reality. It has multiples of itself, and the many combine in various patterns with various functions.
So singularity is a point without reference, while duality/parity is a point referring to itself in the form of another point. Complexity is a point referring to a multitude of itself in the form of numerous points. No matter how many billions of points made, the broken singularity is bound to self-reference. Only in the special case of being non-relative (call it Initial/Final state if you will), is the universe non-referential and absolute.
So to say, as I previously did, that there is no reference point (meaning a human observer) to describe reality is also not true. The truth is rather this; there is nothing but reference points. Any instance/unit of existence is defined in reference to all the others. To believe the aggregates of points/quanta called “humans” are somehow able to stand separate from this “quantum foam” and describe it “objectively” is nonsensical beyond belief. Of course we can’t do that!
But that is not to say it can’t be done. It is done. It’s happening right here, right now.
It’s just not me writing and you reading.
It is One Reality, able to write and read all of itself.

Cool isn’t it?

Paired singularity actions

 This is one way to imagine how time and space are generated by a parity we know as electromagnetic wave package i.e. photon. I will not dwell on the particulars of the individual unit in this post. Just assume that each unit in this dynamic unity will either expand horizontally from rotation or contract vertically from release of axial compression.
The sequence is pictured from a perspective above/below, not from aside. Also, I assume this parity wobbles so the angles of units tilts in specific amounts of degrees. We must also keep in mind that even if it looks like the parity “travels” from left to right, the only displacement is probably that generated by magnetic moment. That length is obviously equal to width of the charge strip. This is how frequency and wavelength is proportional to each other.
I recommend you make an effort to put aside all your knowledge of physics if just for a moment. What we know of these matters is based on understanding dynamics of many body systems. The image here is not to be empirically observed as it is, but only how it is in a context of numerous pairs and triplets of such units.
Another thing to note is that qualities/values/dimensions of black compression and red extension are gradients and that both units have both qualities, except for the momentary case when/where they are either black or red.
When black, there is no extension.
When white, there is no compression.
Don’t get too hung-up on that because it is bound to generate confusion and the wrong counter arguments. “Black” is “grey” equilibrium and “red” is “Black/White” maximum energy. Further, “red” is actually “white” but that’s tricky to show on this canvas. The trick is to figure out how “zero entropy” of one is paired with “equilibrium” of the other one, and how the roles/values gradually shifts to end up in the opposite unit.

pairedsingularity

It’s a waste of potential utility if I pile up what I conclude from this image. You must write your own verses by these letters. This is the simultaneous emergence and disapperance of two fundamental pulses, together making up one first harmonic.
This is a Godlike production of Adam and Eve, continously switching gender as they breathe in seemingly opposite direction. This is an image of the Buddha’s Whole Body Breath i.e. The Holy Spirit.

Can you sense the inhale of projection?
Can you sense the exhale of conjection?

Take a moment and contemplate laws of conservation.
Imagine what direction is like, and of what is directed.
Try finding the director of this dance. Who does it?
Reflect on the problem of finding the protons (3 units) center of mass.
How do you apply the concept of “entropy” in this sequence?
Can you place the hands of two clocks anchored at the centers of mass and see how they run in opposite direction and various, but interdependent speeds?
Can you see why a whole/certain measurement of parity is impossible?
Can you count the number of light-cones in this image, and figure out what it is that runs in what kind of direction(s)?
Can you be the One to unify Electro/Magnetism?
Can you break Quantum Mechanics down to General Relativity?
Can you tell me why all zeros of Riemann’s Z-func. happen to be half-real?
Will you?

Finally, this image is of post-symmetry breaking. This is Enlightenment. The single unbroken Unity of Singularity is a completely different beast. It is conceptually the exact opposite to parity, and why would that be so difficult to realize?
The Cosmic String itself is just the perimeter of a universal pulse. When it breaks from cutting itself in two, we get all of the above. In light, there is a wavy pattern of self-reference and interaction.
One dependent on the other one.
Yin and Yang.
The problem with String Theory, as with all current theories, is that it denies the prime existence of that which cannot be understood by means of reduction. That is, ST images the Cosmic String as 1-dimensional defect within a vacuum manifold not simply connected. But the mathematical concept on “manifold” is based on relations between points on a surface. The key here is points, as in >1. Well, Singularity defies the application of points, simply because it is The Irreducible Point Itself. It cannot be analysed by relative means. Period. Full stop.

In the Godlike Singularity, there is either the extended horizon of heavenly energy or the energetically dead hell of grey indifference. The Singularity oscillates between Every thing and No thing. With parity, there is always Some thing. Half of it coming/projecting and the other half going/conjecting. That is the exi-stence of Be-ing.
The “Out of” that which “Stands”.
The noun of verb.
The verbal-ization of the un-noun…..

Appreciate the notion of God generation as of the (many) Heavens and the (one) Earth and Genesis hopefully starts making its sense come through.

Can you hear the Zen Master  saying:
Reality is not one, nor is it not-not one

 

Micro Macro time tubes

There’s a saying that “As above, so below”, and I suppose it points to the possibility of everything being oscillations between what seems to be opposites. If not that, it points to whatever you prefer to look at. My preference is to look at all of reality as equally real, and what is realized “above” should be realized “below”. But the concepts of “above” and “below” are easily interpreted as “high” and “low” as well as “good” and “bad”, and before we know it, we have made “equality” become “opposition”. This is how minds intelligence operates by default. It cannot tolerate equality and unity because that makes distinction and definition almost impossible. If intelligence can’t tell This from That, it stalls and feels stupid.
What an epic fail that is for the mind which tries to figure out the inner workings of nature.
With forced distinctions, mind runs in circles while believing linear progress is made.

Anyhow, I’d like to revise the old saying a bit by suggesting “As within, so without”. We might also say “As timed, so spaced” or “As potential, so realized”. The point is supposed to be that our measurements of empirical reality are spatial extensions of the potential reality we fail to measure. And if so, the notion of “failure” is itself a failure, becuse it obscures the fact that whatever is “real” must initially have been realized from that which is not yet real, but only potentially so.

C’mon guys…reality is not likely to take off as a ready made, out of a real box “thing” that simply is there.
It is naive to assume the initial state to be an initial thing. And if thing-ness is not in place to begin with, objectivity or thingy-ness is an emergent property of latent potential. And if there is a latent potential, it means that it won’t go away or is completely replaced by what is realized from it.

I’m loosing track as always…
Mind is too extensive.
Too far out.

This is a picture of how within shows up as without as micro evolves to macro. Size is relative while operation is absolute. The cool image is from Wikipedia on microtubule and the doodle is out of my mind. I have not tried to draw a microtubule myself, but only to suggest the image of it can be seen as corresponding to my idea of the fundamental units/unities of potential/reality. I’m sure my image is inherently useless and irrelevant when it comes to any degree of complexity, and a living organism is as complex as it gets. I know nothing of biological complexity, believe me.
The take away message is not about microtubules but of time as the potential background of real, empirical space.

Red is from perimeter of surface ex-tension.
Blue is from original/origo pole tension.

Tension —> Ex-Tension
In Time —> Spaced Out
Black Pole —> White Hole

And since oscillation is the law:
Time <—> SpaceTime <—> Space <—> SpaceTime <—> Time —> ad infinitum

microtubediscmacro

Spacetime proton

My Friday unbelievability is a little picture of how time warps into space, as magnetism warps into electricity. As a bonus, I also offer an armchair theory of a protonic spacetime triplet.
That’s it for this week folks.
Time to make space for a beer…

 

tensorsurfaceSo when we now have helped Time to translate into a smooth and spinning surface of charged Space, we can let 3 basic units ocillate as to have ourselves a Proton. And by this, we can put the quarks, gluons, electrons and anti-stuff in the archives. Thank’s for all the marvelous complexity, but enough is enough.
Let complexity come with increased number of the same legos. You can build more cool stuff the more pieces you have, you know. It’s still legos….spacetimeproton

Surfing on a pole

Here’s an idea of how we can understand the emergence of spacetime from a single oscillator of viscoelastic spin, sort of. It is not really spinning, but rather spinning only when looking at it “on the surface level”. When not spinning, we cannot look at it. Well, we can look at it in the same way we can look at a Black Hole. But we will not be able to observe visually the unit itself. Reason is that it does not make waves, only half a wave. That would be a flat surface extending as a pulse. In relation to a Black Hole, we can then detect what happens at the units extension perimeter as it booms out in a cloud of cosmic dust. We then see an accretion disc comprised of what is close the units perimeter, but we will never see the unit itself.

bhdiscangles

In the above picture of dust flow around a Black Hole, I have added my thoughts about what is really happening. The weird flow pattern suggests there is something flippin’ angles in the center of events, and this seems to be carried out in a non-random sequence related to our number 3. The surface perimeters I have added is not of the singularity-ish unit itself, but how its own extension sequence affects its exterior in a non-random way. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the action in the hole is the inverse to the effect observed external to it. So when 3-dimensional dust is appearently closing in on the unit, the unit itself expands in magnitude, while not expanding by 3-d standards. Remember that the unit we’re analysing is the possible cause of spacetime, not its own effect. If it is the ultimate cause, any detectable effects would be…unexpected to say the least.
The reason 3 full surface extension only make up 180 degrees, not 1080, is up to anyone’s subjective opinion. I would say that 180 is fundamentally correct, while being relatively incorrect. We must contemplate that a proton/electron event is a compount of, what I claim is, 3 separate events. That is, electron orbit is a sequence of 3 fundamental units surface extensions…boom, boom, boom on repeat.
These 3 will, as in the above picture, shift angles too. Then we can play around with numbers and see what comes up. It will depend on how we choose to define a full sequence of a hydrogen atom. Whatever we do, the atomic clock will keep pounding out “time” as space extensions…boom, boom, boom…

No more time for me to build a universe. I gotta go, so here’s an image to meditate over. Be careful of ordinary thinking when looking at it.
Y is not of space values. It requires no room to move is.
The Y-axis has no effective width, but determines the loss of width because at Y, rotation is impossible. At Y, force cannot bend further around itself.
One unit as in the image is itself undetectable. It requiers two in a parity to have one wavelength of electromagnetism. this image is of half a transverse wave.

polesurface