This is not a Black Body

Today I will try to show you why a Black Body is not a Black Body, and how the unknowable can be known if we know what makes knowledge possible at all. I have had this invisible image in my mind for a few years now, but still I have not been able to share it with someone. This should be understood as “not able to commute that which enables a receiver to respond in such a way that a co-responding happens”. It is obvious that an invisible image is impossible in itself, let alone to communicate. It has to be so. My effort is to trigger a constructive response in you. Not shove my response down your throat. This is very difficult, because anything I say or show will by default be reconstructed according to your existing cognitive structures. It has to be so. But knowing how communication is bidirectional can be of some help.

The image has, to me, opened the floodgates to numerous Aha-moments. It still does. It is a game changer with profound consequences, that is, if you want it to be that. If you do not want it to be of any significance to you, it won’t be. Then it is just someone’s private speculations. Well, it IS someone’s private speculations no doubt, but not necessarily just so. It might also be valuable. It might also be complete/incomplete nonsense.
Ultimately, it is what it is. It is an event of co-responding.

Trying to avoid my usual rambling all over Everything, this will be an introductory post, an initial conditioning of you, so what follows has at least a slight possibility of being understood correctly. Only then can there be an accurate response to what I actually suggest, and not to what you have me suggesting. Only then can it be rightfully buffed or nerfed.

Let’s begin with the scope of this image. It answers none of your questions, except for one; What Is This? By “this” I do not mean any of the following:
God, reality, entanglement, entropy, particles, consciousness, mathematics, religion, free will, continuum, theory, mind, matter, energy, consciousness, purpose, intention, relativity, QM, essence, ether, gravity, true, good, impossible, probable, measurable, important or consciousness.
By “this” I mean: FUNDAMENTAL.
The reason I suggest the fundamental to be of highest priority is this – if we get it somewhat wrong, everything that follows will be somewhat skewed and out of focus. Not “wrong”, but not “right” either. If that is a problem is up to that response of yours. I just want to know Everything for no particular reason at all…it seems.


Using the concept of Black Body (BB) is bound to cause multiple misconceptions, because you know already what a Black Body is, and that is not what I suggest here. That means most readers will stop reading here. Before leaving, some friendly soul might suggest references and further studies so I can educate myself properly. And by that, our paths diverge. I can see for myself that my image is not of a Kirchhoff Black Body. The main reason for this is that my image does not include absorption of any kind, nor anything like emission. Since perfect absorption and zero emission is the very definition of a blackbody, this is obviously something else. There is no need to state the obvious over and over again. Sharing your opinion that the image is confusing and contradicting adds nothing but informational noise. I know it is confusing and full of contradictions. I wrote the damn thing. I have pictured it for soon to be 5 years. If you know it, you also know why it is confusing and paradoxical to an observer. You don’t reject QM out of the box, just because it is confusing, do you? You don’t accuse Zen for being full of paradoxes, do you? Objecting to my use of “Black Body” and “blackbody” without explicitly spelling out why I do that and how they relate to each other in this context, that is just interference and I’ll put you in the penalty box until you stop such nonsense. Unless you actively refuse to know, you know perfectly well what I mean. If not perfectly, well enough goes a long way.



But I reluctantly use the term Black Body anyway, because if I don’t use a conventional label, that is what is wrong and what makes everyone run away screaming “Pseudo-scientific crackpottery”. So I say “Black Body”, thinking it is the closest any concept I know of comes to what I’m suggesting.

I predict that most, if not all, questions you might have about this initial image are answered already. You must read more carefully the part of what it is not about. Then there are likely to be opinions. They cannot be answered but only argued. I won’t argue opinions unless I forget not to. It can be fun and challenging, but mostly it is boring and counterproductive. If you want the image to be potentially significant, you will ask honest questions. If you do not want it to be significant, you will argue your point. No one has ever been persuaded by arguments. Answers is what does it, so keep questioning…Everything!
I did, and I came up with Nothing.

Then of course there is the Gatekeepers of Credibility who will respond per usual:
You must include relevant equations, a list of references and vectors, scales, philosophical background, elementary charge, the number 137, set-theory, topology and algebra and whatever (we decide) is required for communicating anything at all of significance.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, these Gatekeepers would join the following category.

Then the impatient ones who wants all their favourite questions answered promptly, or the image explains nothing at all to them. They want more than just an alphabet. They want you to read for them. You are supposed to read their favourite story, over and over again.
But consciousness is primary and is not of a Black Body
But there must be spacetime inherent in the image and it’s not
But existence is mathematical and cannot be based on geometry
But existence is based on geometry and cannot be based on a nondimensional point
But this has to be observable or it is supernatural metaphysics
But God is not reducible to a scientific concept
But Science is not reducible to an unknowable Genesis
But a Black Body is just a useful concept
But a layperson cannot possibly understand this without extensive education and years of diligent practice.
Sorry, can’t help them. If I could, it would be to help them strengthen their arguments in favour of their current story.

But nevertheless,  there is a faint hope of someone who is not only guided by convention and a priori assumptions of what is possible, true, desirable, correct, allowed and appropriate. Someone who was not dead set on reframing this image to fit his own theory/model.  If that one person looks at the image, reads the few words attached and makes a little effort to let the input stand for itself, if only for 10 minutes, then s/he might just come up with some relevant questions, and not just the predictable ones stated above. S/he might be curious….doubting…wondering…
How does that move?
How did that get there?
What enforces that?
Why is that not a Black Hole?
Why is that unknowable?

The last one I can suggest an answer to right now. It is unknowable because there is no knower relative to it. It is more fundamental than epistemology and ontology combined. In those domains, the questions are usually based on the a priori assumption that there is an existing relation knower-known. Then we start elaborating on that relation.
Who knows who, are both observers and observed, are they one or two, how does information flow from one to the other and in-between, are they discrete or continuous, local or nonlocal etc.. You can spend a lifes worth of asking the above without knowing for sure. But there’s wealth of relatively correct answers to pic from and they keep coming. Already the old Greeks knew. Everyone knows, but no one seems to know why.

If you look really closely at the/my Black Body, you might realize that there is no possible relation presented. This unity is not of relativity. It is the epitome of the Absolute. Before your pre-conception of the term “absolute” shuts down all your cognitive functions and crystallize it into a solid wall of rejection, please take a few minutes and check the source. Absolute refers to that which is away from+loosening.  From that root of perfect unity, it has grown branches of meaning that are like the origin, but only relatively so. Can you spot the potential problem with this? To me, it is obvious. If we start to wobble in relation to the absolute, we are immediately lost and separated from its very nature. So much that it can suddenly mean the opposite to itself, as in “make separate”. This brings immense confusion to all our thinking about fundamentals. To make it sensible and useful, we must hold on to the most basic and concrete definition and meaning it can possibly have. That would be; “not lost” or perhaps “conserved”. Then we can use relative as its extreme opposite, as in “coming and going” or perhaps “progressive”.

The careful reader can easily spot an inconsistency, and it is a tricky one. How can that which is, by its most fundamental definition, absolute also be relative? This is a very good objection to what I have just said. I would be a fool to suggest that the ultimate cause of all existing effects is (a) absolute, and thus (b) empty of relations. That would be saying General Relativity is totally wrong and a theory of Nothing at all. It is to negate what is obvious in our everyday experience. Since that would be stupidity per excellence, I will not suggest that.

The reason my image of this Black Body is empty of relations is that the image is incomplete. Not only incomplete, but also fundamentally wrong as it stands right now. What makes it wrong is that the most vital aspect is missing. Unless I add the missing property, the unit is indeed absolute and non-relative, just like I said it is. But it will not remain so for very long. That which is absolute will only last a moment, or perhaps 3 moments. I’ll leave that to those who know math and physics. Read that again before you start arguing. Absolute is not of a stable state, let alone a particular “thing/object”. Not in my image. No way. I claim it to be a momentary configuration that, in a very specific way, makes the existence of relatives and relations impossible. It is a momentary state of a unit that can be of numerous momentary states as defined by an existing observer. The only one of these possible states that an observer cannot observe is likely to be the state of absolute-ness. Why this is so will become less of a mystery when we have graced the Black Body with its most prominent attribute. I said it is incomplete, but that needs a slight revision. It is incomplete if understood from the context of its effects. That context is to no surprise the current universe of measurable relatives. This image is of that which potentially enforces it to be what it is. QM and GR deals with the numerous effects. My image is not that. It is not of an initial condition, but of an eternal conditioner of conditioning. Can you possibly recognize the significant differences between condition – conditioning – conditioner? Try object – observation – observer….

As for now, all we know is that whatever is pictured here, it is not of observable qualities.
If we wish, we can therefore label it “supernatural”, “hidden” or “that which cannot be known”. I suggest we avoid all such definitions because they hi-jack our imagination and steals away from us any degrees of intellectual freedom.
If supernatural, scientific mind shuts down.
If hidden, we must invent that which hides it. Please, don’t do it. You will end up with a cover, a bulk, a boundary and a double cover. Before you can say “Duality”, game is over.
If “That which cannot be known”, there is the obvious risk of abandoning the whole issue. Of course, we are not able to let go of the fundamental question, but if we dodge the question of why an absolute state is unknowable, we begin to generate objects that have the property of being invisible, ethereal or omnipresent.
A spacetime grid or a universal background or …gravity…

Ok, now you are free to do what you are forced to do:

– A double cover is a …formalism…necessary…understand…Nobel Prize…
– Your use of the word “observer” is …Copenhagen interpretation….uncertainty….nonsense.
– A singularity is by definition _insert your preferred definition_
– What do you mean by…duality…intellectual….body….ontology…obviously you’re wrong.
– Absolute can be defined as …without a conscious witness….just so you know!
– In string theory, dimensions are ….which contradicts…because
– Contrary to what you imply here, General Relativity is not …
– Already the old Greeks knew that …fundamentals must…because…
– I get the impression you believe …which is wrong…because..
– Just because you consider…doesn’t mean…because…
– My God you’re full of your own garbage aren’t you.

Yes of course, definitely; it is, it does, it means, it should, it must, I will, I am, I can’t, there is, there was, he said, you are, you can and no one should, just as everyone is required to.

Now, does a dog have Buddha nature, or can we for once respond according to what actually is?

The point of reversals

Here’s an idea of the point/meaning of spacetime. It is the same point really, but is has two faces/phases, and we can only see one of them. We can see “space” by looking at real stuff. We might think that the stuff we see is moving about “in” space, as if there was some thing like space that could have stuff in it. That’s because we forget, or choose not to acknowledge, that “dimension” means “measurement”. So it is kind of missing the point to keep measuring a measurement. What we are doing is of course measuring/dimesioning the stuff that has the quality of extension.
It is the objects that have space, not space that has objects.

Anyways, the very scientific and artsy image is of something we can call “zero point”. That term is already occupied with meaning and misconceptions, so it is not that zero point. Don’t google “zero point” whatever you do. And if you already have, forget it. This is, as of today, the enigmatic Monopole. But it is also singularity, the cosmic string, charge, spacetime, entanglement, time reversal, Speed of Light, wavelength/frequency, matter/antimatter and ….you.  But to get “you” and all other real stuff, we must have more than one single point. Everything real is combinations of many points sharing their wavelengths. That sharing is the so called unified field of empirical reality. In this One entangeled field, you will never find One single point. We can never find a monopole or a singularity, because they always come in at least a pair, possibly as “photons”. String theory’s one cosmic string is essentially a circular extension of a prime monopole/singularity that breaks by internal oscillations and becomes 2 monopoles extensions. There’s IMO only one instance when all points are unified into One Single Point.
You’ve guessed it, the initial unknown before the “Big Bang”. But that story is for later. Today we live in a reality where the many spinning zeros make an awesome flow of forward charge.

The image below is just food for thought. Think of it as an elastic sphereoid of contraction that spins so fast that its equator extends. Then imagine that, at the same time, the both ends of the same pole, that now runs through its extension, must close in on each other. It is one single point where extension as a circle and contraction as a straight line happens at once. It extends exactly as much as it contracts and vice versa. But the opposite directions of extension/contraction happens in opposite locations of the point.
Never the less, and this here is the tricky part so sit still and hold on to your ears; the 2 negative polarizations and the 1 positive extension are of the same point/unit. It is not like sphere + rings with some appearent gap between the parts that make up “Saturn”. All measurables and “dimensions” coming from this point come from the same source.

If we relate the image to string theory, I suggest strings are of the red perimeters that are wavelengts. The actual waving of the smooth perimeter comes from multiple points showing combined perimeters that lights up in complex sequences. A system of communicating extensions, they always communicate/relate, could perhaps behave like a “closed” string of an arbitrary volume/space. Then “open” strings would be all extensions not possible to define as belonging to a closed set with relevant values in uniform. But I know very little of string theory so just taking an intuitive stab at it. Basically there would be only one truly closed string i.e. the pre-big bang cosmic string/ring/surface.
Don’t know formal geometry either so “prolate/oblate” might be “ellipsoid” to the pro’s. I know “Point” is worthless to many in math because you cannot describe dimansions by means of a point, since the very definition of a mathematical point is that it has zero dimensions. Well, I’m not looking at that which has dimensions. I am looking at that which generates dimensionables.

Stop staining the picture with dimensions. I just put them there to show where masurements/dimensions are made possible. In the single point, there is nothing to measure. You must have 2 point before they realize their extensions as reality. One single point is the One Singularity without a reality to exist in.
Keep calm and count to 1.
The many points are not The Point.
Once they were and Once they will return.
But first, just an idea looking like this:

point phases

To have ones mind changed

When believe something, I really believe that. Until I don’t. Then I really believe something else. If I believe that I know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really knew X. If I believe I don’t know X, I will act as if that was true. As if I really don’t know X.
What X really is, X only knows.
X is probably X.

Since I was old enough to contemplate existence and what existence really is, I have gone through a lot of beliefs, and I promise you, I believed them all equally much. One such belief was that the story of Big Bang was totally unbelievable. I found, and still find, a thousand reasons not to believe it. I will spare you the details, and I’m sure you know most of them. Or so I really believe anyway.

Come a moment in life when a certain belief changes shape and colour. It might still be the same belief, but something has drastically changed. In the case of my dis-belief in the Big Bang story, the change is not the Big Bang itself, but what the Big Bang is about. Suddenly I find myself believing it was actually so. It was a Big Bang-ish event which kicked off the universe as we know it. But having learned more about the concepts involved and how we argue about them, I have found that the problem is not the Big Bang but how the story is told. It is as unbeliavable today as it has been for all of my life. But today I believe myself to know better why the story sounds like science fiction and why it doesn’t make any sense.

The Big Bang story suffers credibility mainly because we cannot tell the story of singularity in a reasonable way. And since singularity is a “big” player in Einsteins wonderful universe of relativity, we think it is BIG. We forget that the singularity might just be a player, and the size comes from the way it plays. We understand universe from our point of view. Science prides itself of being objective and non-egocentric, but that’s educated bullshit.
A measuring device might be objective, but the detectors don’t interpret data.
A computer tells no story and explains nothing.
It computes.
A scientist is not objective.
A scientist is a scientist.

Today I believe in the so called Big Bang, but that is not from what science tells me about it. What has changed my mind is what science doesn’t tell me. It says a lot about singularities in theory. There’s a library full of books on singularity.
Gravitational singularity.
Mathematical singularity.
Naked singularity.
Technological singularity.
Then we are told “No one knows a singularity. It is beyond description. The laws of the universe break down in the singularity. It writes its own laws and we have no access to the laws of the singularity

Then I think this: They are looking at God.

The way mind responds to the singularity reminds me of how it responds to some imagined entity which is supposed to be The Beginning.
“In the beginning there was” ….and then the stories diverge. But they are trying to describe the same event.
The Beginning.
After all the books are written, all arguments thrown on the table, all storytellers end their tale with a common disclaimer:
-The Beginner of Beginning is not to be understood.
-The Singular God is beyond conventional mind of mankind.
Still, they have their theories of what this unknown creator created first.
Bible says that “heaven and earth” cames first.
Science prefer to begin with “light”.
Bible says “God did it”.
Science says “We don’t know, but we’re working on it”.

Then I encountered the Monopole and it changed my mind.
It was a Big Bang-ish event.
Heaven and earth is probably prior to light, but light is true while heaven and earth is a metaphor. Both camps win. Both camps lose. Fair deal. At least fair enough methinks.
The discription of a Monopole fits the Wanted! ad to a T.

One undetectable character
One force to unite them all
A master of disguise
Extremely powerful
Carries a Holy Grail full of answers
Description: Looks a lot like “Nothing”

So what is a “monopole” then?
It is what it is.
A monopole is a monopole.
I have no addition to what wikipedia says, and you can look that up for yourself.
The question is – how well does that descripition fit the descriptions of God and Singularity. That’s a matter of opinion and belief.
Today, in my opinion, I believe God is a Monopole Singularity.
I believe in Gods, Monopoles and Singularities.
Heureka as well as Halleujah.
I believe One multiplies as many Ones.
I believe many Ones does This.
I believe the many Ones are of two faces/phases.
All of One (not “in” One)
All as Once (not “at” once)

But only in The Beginning is the One all alone.
So One breaks into Light
Light enlightens all forms of reality
Reality is this Enlightenment
One shines as many Ones
One eventually gathers itself
The many Ones again becomes the Only One
Light returns itself to the source
The One Pole attracts every Little One
Then…what we cannot understand, because there is no “where” to stand.
There are no relatives to the One Alone, so theories of relativity are silenced.
There are no quantities, so quantum theory are silenced.
As a fact, “there” does not apply.
As a fact, “is” does not apply.
As a fact, “One” does not apply.
What applies is Action. That does it. Action.
Not action potential because this reality can not be. It has to be.
Reality must be inevitably enforced, not optional.
Option implies a choise, a decision and intention. Believing this is so, God, Singularity and Monople line up to enter stage. But there is no stage and no One to enter.
Stage One comes later. Big comes with the Bang, but not yet.

This is what makes it difficult to describe. We are trying to imagine action without an actor. We know there is no one physically there to do it, but we know it is done.
So we imagine Force, which is not that hard. But then the mistake of mind.
We attatch some thing that is forceful, as to “have” force.
Always looking for the doer of what is done.
God is forceful
Singularities are forceful
Monopoles are forceful
We believe that if there is force, some thing has to be full of it.
If there is walking, there has to be a walker.

Today I believe that as The Beginning was what walks the walker.
The coming of what comes.
The going of what goes.
The around of all.

The Beginning comes around and goes around
Today that is…


Liquid monopole unification

Liquid monopole unification

Today I learned about a paper where spacetime was derived from quantum entanglement. What got my attention was initially the picture of this relation. Since I’m no good at math, visions are my source of information. I thought this image could be helpful in describing this vision of mine. I will not bother you with the whole picture in one post, but just the basics. Everything is based on the fundament anyway so if you contemplate that, the rest follows naturally. But you must keep your mind in check. The fundamentals are so simple that intelligence will not believe it. Intelligence default mode of operation is of dualities. It cannot count to 1. Please mind the gap.

Here is the picture:

Locality of Gravitational Systems from Entanglement of Conformal Field Theories, Physical Review

Letters, 2015


So what we see looks like half a real system, doesn’t it? It is like the spheres are divided and the upside is gone. How can a spinning liquid look like half a sphere? Well, my answer is that the red gravitational dot in the bottom of the darkest sphere is missing its twin dot. From the center out, there seems to be generation of extended bowls/spheres, but in the absolute center there is just one.

What I suggest is this: assume the red dot to be 1 zero dimensional monopole as described by Dirac. Add to the above image a twin monopole and place it and its extensions as a mirror image over the one we have. By that, you see the whole picture as it actually is.
As we have learned, one single monopole is undetectable so that’s not it. But if we make a pair of monpoles, I claim they generate an electromagnetic field, and by that we have ourselves a photon package. This is how I unify the forces into One.

I’m just a guy without the formal tools to communicate this vision properly. I just throw stuff at those who I believe able to cruch the numbers and plot the graphs. I vision the geometries and functions. I connect available dots. But I do not communicate well from my intellectual confinement. But for some reason, I keep trying. The doodle here is such an effort, knowing that to you it appears as irrelevant armchair speculations and crackpottery. I’ve stopped being bothered by that. The picture I paint is so simple that it has to be unbeliavable. If it looked right, there would be nothing radically new in it.

Crude description of combinig a spinning liquid into a photon of two monopoles. Suggesting possible unification of forces.

I can’t even make the resolution right so it’s all blurry, haha. How goofy can it get? Anyways, here’s the basic assumptions:
A monopole is a point sphere of elastic/liquid spinning contraction.
The monopole sphere defines the limit of dimensional space.
Monopole spin causes the spherical geometry to fallent out to, what I believe is called, an ellipsoid.
Flattening of monopole geometry is ultimate cause of all physical dimensions of spacetime and forces.
The one monopole has by definition 2 two ends, both acts in opposite linear relation.
The monopole sphere has no axis of rotation because it is the fundamental axis.
As the 2 poles of the monopole “contracts/gravitates” towards shared center point, the great circle of the sphereoid extends accordingly.
Equator extension and pole contraction happens at once. This is NOT a sequence of 1,2. It is a uniform action of opposite effects/values.
2 ends narrow a linear relation while 1 torus/circle extends an orbit.
This is NOT dual action. It is ONE action.
It is the unification of forces. Not a “collection” of forces.
Again, in the monopole it is nonsensical to assume the known forces to be present at once. Thats looking at it backwards. The monopole spinning elastic contraction is what presents itself as multiples of measurable forces, but they are not multiple.
They are fundamentally ONE that does Everything AT ONCE. Please contemplate the unbelievable simplicity in this. The brute logic. Empty your mind of multiples and really make an effort to act as a singularity.
All of reality is multiples of the monopoles extensions. Quanta is of these momentary flashes of extensions that go on/off at exactly C speed.
C is NOT a linear measure, but a measure of zero point frequency spin.
Two monopoles make one photon, so the value of C relates to the photon sequence of wavelength-gap-wavelength- gap etc. C is not of “speed” or “velocity” but points to a discrete sequence and what’s likely 3 steps/flips, like “changes”.
Electricity is fundamentally the extension orbit charge. It is inherently kinetic while being circular.
Magnetism is fundamentally the double negative contraction of monopole ends which defines the undetectable aspect of the unit.
NOTE: the zero limit is not a perfect circle. A perfect circle is the average limit. The boundary surface that unfortunately divides QM and GR is wavy. It is so because all measures in empirical reality are of 2 (photon) or +2 (matter) multiples of monopoles. Their combined pulses creates a wave pattern.
Energy dynamics on quantum level seems to be guided by phase inversions. These should be easily pictured assuming the above scenario. The logic then implies that is that is the case of local change, then it also holds for global change. Therefore it is reasonable to assume a universal cycle being similar to:

2. Monopole breaks in two
3. Photon
4. Photon breaks in multiples
5. Multiples combine to complexity
6. Complexity contracts in monopoles
7. Super massive mopoles unite into 1 monopole
8. Rinsed and repeated.

I could release a barrage of consequenses following the above scenarion, but this is more than enough I think. I don’t expect anyone to believe it anyway. Not now. But all I see when looking at what emerges out of avant garde research is a collective convergence towards “my” model.
I don’t think of it as “mine” really, because it is just a product of throwing available data into a questionable mind.
I’m sure the “mind”-part is the key to unlock a GUT or a ToE. I am not saying this is what I have done.
It is NOT. Hopefully I can inspire someones thinking to dare the path less travelled. That path leads to both non-local nowhere and eternity, as well as global infinity in no time.
To me, that spells Enlightenment.
Why not have a shot at it? What’s there to lose but perhaps a career in academia and all of your credibility?
If you’re afraid to lose your mind thinking like this, don’t be.
You know why?
Because if the unified field is actually true, that mindwas not yours to have anyway.

As for entanglement, I think the paper speaks for itself. I have nothing to add but what I just said. The paper is half the big picture shown correctly. If they double the bet, they might win a big prize.

If by any chance anyone is actually curious to have me elaborate, in my layman terminology, don’t hesitate to let me know. I have no one to talk to about these ideas so it would be my pleasure.
I make things up on my own as it appears…

The World on a String

The length of a string in String Theory is not much. It is to a grain of sand as we are to the known universe i.e. tiny. However, this does not neccesarily mean it is complicated or impossible to study. If you look at it in a simple way, it’s pretty straight forward. Here’s the equation of Nambu-Goto which is basics in String Theory:



The important part is: -1÷2πα. Please don’t ask me about the rest of this beauty because I don’t understand much of it. But in my math, π is 3 and the tension of a string is equally of contraction and expansion, going sequentially in-out-in-out.. from zero, so α is 1+1=2. Please note that we are never subtracting anything from reality, and especially not from the world of strings where reality is generated. So 1 positive “out” and 1 negative “in” makes 2, not 0. That’s the dual radius of 1  operation by this little singularity. By this we get:

-1÷2πα = -1÷2x3x2 = -1÷12 = -0.08333…

This is nice considering the Ramanujan summation of divergent series which is: -1÷12 = -0.08333…Ramanujan figured this fraction is the effective sum of addition 1+2+3+4+5+…+n. And this piece of the unified field knew where he came from and what he was. He was reality speaking.

The pro’s will probably consider this a coincidence or triviality. To me it is a good indicator of being on the right track when playing my strings. This is the fundamental generation.

Ramanujan said his knowledge came from a Goddess. He was, like all the great Ones, not a professional knower. He just knew.

“World On A String”

You know I lose,

you know I win

You know I call for
the shape I’m in.
It’s just a game you
see me play,
Only real in the way
That I feel
from day to day.

Although the answer
is not unknown,
I’m searchin’, searchin’,
and how I’ve grown.
It’s not all right
to say goodbye,
And the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.

No, the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.
It’s only real in the way
That I feel from day to day.
No, the world on a string
Doesn’t mean a thing.

Neil Young

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?


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.