The Creation of Time

Space curvature on te Moon

(Appendix to Menkaure, Maeshowe & Mathematical Mind)

new sequence appendices 2/4/18

A new cosmology
Here I present an original cosmology with a new set of (sometimes old) concepts partly based on a new mathematical natural number paradigm, which sees everything (all vibration) based  on resonance – a whole-number phenomenon with a spread in time!
I relate this ontology to what I understand of mystical insights in Reality which far surpass the confines of science (and Western philosophy and thinking in general).
The true scientific aim should be a wholly different, that is, ‘enlightened’, concept of Reality, but that is not in the cards today, at least not in the rational and materialistic West.
Only a few centuries ago Science was still referred to as an all inclusive ‘Natural Philosophy’ (Descartes, Newton), but today Philosophy is hardly an issue in a ‘rationally’ fragmented science, which shows often in its narrow-mindedness, short sightedness, irresponsibility, bias, fraud and loss of greater human perspective.
Ever, science was a spiritual treasure to shape a philosophy and world view, now it is big business and deeply corrupted at times. The scientific community with its sceptical bearing, is probably the biggest dead weight in ‘established’ society, dragging the speed of action of governments on climate change. They are all too eager to listen to guys who say: ” it’s not all that bad, it’s Nature, you have to see the big picture, take it easy”. (the Freeman Dyson types, ‘CO2 is good for plants’; don’t underestimate the reactionary drive of the ‘establishment’ when it comes to their privileges, like private jets).
There is neither any spiritual nor any clever Big Picture in Cosmology, it’s no more than a rather intellectually shallow and downright incredible Big Bang theory. This ‘explosive theory’ is a rather detrimental aspect of modern cosmology. It’s lazy thinking. The utter nonsense of its logic flies in the face of every sound thinking person and that is bad for science and for sound thinking persons, because science has an authority which makes your incredulity look stubborn if not stupid. Science believes its own superior insight, creating something out of nothing, you only need a primordial bang.
The BigBang theory  will become the laughing stock for generations of scientists to come: sad symbol of a brilliant but insane century.
( How could they ever seriously think that, en masse!)

In the following, I hope I have succeeded in presenting a first outline of what an ‘enlightened description of reality’ would look like; may its concepts evolve with deepening insight.

*******

This is a compilation of short related topical pieces all expressing the philosophy of science put forward on my website The Creation of Time (especially in Menkaure etc.).
Most of these pieces were written in the Himalayas of India, Ladakh, where I stayed for 3 summers (2012-2014) and saw the glaciers melt on otherwise barren mountain slopes over 5000m high, the whole range towards Kashmir.

We start with the analysis of one of the great concepts of modern physics, the ‘curved space-time‘, what does it mean, who understand and what is it they understand? Do I understand it?
This is accompanied by an analysis of the distorted visual perspective on the moon, puzzling the astronauts, but not the scientists, it just seems beyond them. (I wrote this over 10 years ago and even after seeing their results I still think they focus on the wrong thing, weightlessness, and not on what should be explored, that is, the far stronger curvature of the moon surface relative to that of earth; this created the human puzzlement in judgement. there is no weightlessness on the moon so they may be already making the wrong parameters on the basis of their not-understood data, now, btw. This may impair the usefulness of their advice to astronomers going to the moon, because their set-up and understanding is wrong)

They have done programmes with astronauts in weightlessness (space station) and found that there was distortion in depth perception, the height was diminished, the depth deeper. I read this only recently, whereas the bulk of this article is over 10 years old. They relate their results to zero-gravity, but in my view their distortions were due to the curvature of space at the orbit height of the space station itself. It ‘flies’ at 400km high in the thermosphere, that is about the distance between London and Paris, on the Globe that is ‘nothing’, it moreover shows how extremely thin the atmosphere is, it is overall some 1000km thick, London- Berlin, but oxygen stops at about 500km high. It’s official height is 100km)

I claim that the vision and time-experience on the moon is distorted by the curvature of the moon-space itself, being so much more curved than on earth, that is, the visual curvature we are used to and experience as ‘flat’ and ‘normal’ on earth. And as regards time-experience it would be the different gravity which influences the experience, I think. This is about a ‘really’ experienced curved space by humans, with a visibly bent horizon and a slower transformation pace but greater speed (jumping); a time paradox they couldn’t handle, maybe.

(I think the term ‘space-time’ is wrong, ‘space-continuum’ is right. The term ‘continuum’ is the source of the ‘time-factor’-idea, but embodied in the ‘continuous physical transformation rates’, or simply , rates of change. It has the moving as well as all-encompassing aspect of continuity, the state of continuity, which is linked to ‘eternity’, linked to infinity, a concept that is beyond ‘time’, it’s a state of space, again, not time.

*********

Curved Space(-time)

Since Einstein’s work on space and  gravity the term ‘curved space-time’ has become a household concept in physics and the intellectual world, although no-one really understands what it actually designates, let alone where it originates. It’s an abstract concept. Descriptions are often tautologies or misleading. ‘Matter tells space how to curve and space matter how to move’. That is the catch phrase, but it does not hold water because it suggests a false dichotomy between matter and space. In our view, as in Einstein’s btw, matter is a specific state of space.
I argue on my website that the term ‘space-time’ is a misnomer because time does not physically exist, it is the constantly changing continuity of space, the ‘existence’ of space and ‘curved space’ is the signature of micro-space, macro-space and the ‘creation of space’; moreover I think the term has caused major confusion in theoretical physics as it seems to have become a kind of replacement for ‘aether’ itself and, worse, might block insights into the obvious ‘curvature’ of everyday space as I will argue here.

Because we deal with balls (stars, planets) and rings (ring systems, Kuyper belt) in outer space, we can see spheres and tori (plural  of ‘torus’, ring) as representatives of ‘materialized  mathematical forms’ in physics and, as such, as ‘actualised geometries’ in ‘organic space’ (aether), so the ball and ring are the actual representatives  and outcome of intrinsic space curvature characteristics. Spin is cause and effect of curvature, the vortex and its spiralling standing wave, the state of absorption and reflection, of contraction and radiation/expansion. So we want to build our ontology from ‘principles’ and find the balance between them.

The major difference in my approach with Einstein’s is that in my view space organizes energies in balls by producing an even deep-field radiation pressure by wave fronts on all sides (analogue, but substantially different from le Sage’s ‘push-gravity’ or ‘shadow-gravity’, which is based on bombarding particles) and that this general condition makes the sphere a fundamental geometry of space; this is how space organizes itself in its excited material state. Also in my approach ‘matter’ does not exist other than as a configuration of excited space-pixalls (-vibration) and we see that the space-matter dichotomy is ‘dissolved’. Matter should be an obsolete concept in physics, it’s all about mathematical vibration patterns around identifiable qualities/harmonies in a sea of space-pixalls (planck-fields, singularity-fields Einstein).

Take our earthly atmosphere, the curved low cloud cover over the horizon, that is curvature of space, you can see it when you first imagine and then  know it, like the curved sea-horizon, that is real curvature of earth and atmosphere, what clearer experiential curvature of space do you want?
But this is not what scientists mean with their ‘curvature of space-time’; in their ‘space-time relativity’ a ball thrown vertically in the air and coming down at your feet has from the ball’s perspective described a straight line in space-time, of which they concede they don’t know what it really is, it is a totally mathematical abstract description actually (and it is wrong, I think).
But, say, if the curved cloud-cover does not signify curvature of space, what then does it? Is the terrestrial atmosphere not curved space? Is the ground we stand on not curved? How does it become curved? What tension works there?  Gravity? that is only a word you don’t know the meaning of really.
We, and even scientists, do not realize and appreciate that our whole perception of perspective and distance is due to the specific curvature of the earth’s surface. This showed dramatically on the moon where astronauts were at a loss for judgement of height and distance. Everything  seemed smaller and nearer.

Astronauts
The astronauts on the moon could not deal with distance because of the different curvature of the (smaller) moon sphere ( that is my explanation), everything seemed nearer and smaller than it ‘was’; also the perception of time changed, in my view, due to the different gravity and the speeds related.
Buzz Aldrin 1969: What really impressed me was the difference in distances. After we were back inside again, looking out at the flag, the television, and the experiments, they looked as though they were right outside the window. In fact, on the surface, we had moved them a reasonable distance away. So I think distance judgment is not too good on first setting down. The tendency is to think that things are a good bit closer than they actually are. This says they (meaning the boulders) are probably a good bit larger than what we might have initially estimated”. They had felt as though they were standing on a large ball rather than on land surface.  Armstrong said, “I was surprised by a number of things, and I’m not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon.”

This then is curvature of space: ‘standing on a large ball’, with a horizon close by instead of on a ‘flat'(!) land-surface  as on earth (?).
But this is the trick. Aren’t we standing on a large ball with a horizon close by, as well? It’s just that we are used to the curvature of our slightly larger ball that land surface and sea surface seem straight and flat to us, not? But it is obvious that the curvature of the moon surface and the space right above it work as a tele-lens, there is nothing wrong with the ‘judgement’ of the astronaut, the environment does indeed appear differently, nothing ‘illusion’, it is as real as it can be, but the whole environment vibrates in a different mathematical mode, this now is the effect of ‘space contraction’ near an object, in my parlance and view.

Al Shepard remarked: “It’s crystal clear up there – there’s no closeness that you try to associate with it in Earth terms – it just looks a lot closer than it is”. Astronaut Pete Conrad mistakenly judged a 500 m diameter crater that was 4500 m from his position as only 35 m in diameter and 300 m away; less than a 1/10 real distance, that is huge magnification! Could it be that the magnification is related to the surface areas ratio of earth and moon? (40589641/3017169 = 13.45 so 1 : 13.5 is close to the 7% in the guesses above). [[Not clear yet, not right]]

As far as I know there is no scientific comment on this ‘moon-space-perception-distortion’, let alone an explanation, given they probably think it’s a ‘problem of the astronauts’, as the astronauts tend to think themselves obviously, (“the tendency is to think that….”) as if it is a matter of just ‘getting used to it’; but what is ‘it’ then? The factual experiential curvature of space doesn’t suit the scientific theories and way of thinking, but this is curvature in reality and it does not go away by thinking it cannot exist this way. It is a dramatic eaxample and aspect of real space-curvature.
Going on a mission to the moon to study space curvature is still a bridge too far for our scientists. They rather have astronauts race around in buggies again and collect ever more moon stones, i’m afraid, than find out what is really interesting and not understood, the magnifying quality of moon space; they rather continue there Relativity-slumber. Paradoxically it is this experience of space curvature that emphasizes the relativity of the environment but this is not at all recognized (afaik).
A setting sun and a low rising moon also seem bigger (closer) because of the tele-lensing of the curvature of our own terrestrial atmosphere (because of the small angle there is of course much more really curved space in between object sun/moon and observer at those times, but it is a short window), but scientists keep on saying it is an illusion. They still don’t get the curvature of everyday space. (Use binoculars and see how close the sea horizon is).
In our own atmosphere looking up the mountain, things seem nearer, looking down further away, the gradient of a steady climbing road can seem horizontal (‘false flat’), again, different perception because of curvature of space based on general surface-curvature. The mountains on the moon looked close by and not as high as on the charts.
The round Earth is the result of the curvature of space, caused by the universal spherical cosmic wave-front-pressure generated by the energy and inertial fields of stars and the like, pressing in every point of space, in short it is the result of the way things are.

So no mystery about gravity any more when you realize it is the very weak universal combined wave-field-pressure (G) accelerated (g) by the geometries of local space ( object’s lee-field). This pressure is absorbed by rotation and emitted as inertial-reflection-field, causing inertia.
Because this process of transforming wave-pressure into inertia means energy is lost in free space, Gravity is effectively a ‘Cooling of the Cosmos’, as I have claimed and explained before elsewhere. ( and now years ago)
Gravity can be explained. It can be explained without mysterious ‘attraction’ and without even more mysterious ‘space-time-curvature’.(see Gravity= the Cooling of the Cosmos). Good science is a matter of the right understanding by the right description.
*****
Unknowns
Unfortunately science speaks a lot in concepts scientists don’t understand themselves: ‘unknowns’; between them there are the most common household words, ‘gravity’ is one, ‘mass’, ‘inertia’, all closely related, then ‘wave-particle duality’, ‘space-time curvature’, ‘probability wave’, ‘black hole’ are others.
What they have is ‘a name for an unknown’, for many ‘unknowns’, nevertheless suggesting they know what they are talking about, which is usually no more than an aggregate of qualities and/or conditions, they collectively think to observe. Good science is by nature ‘venturing into the unknown’, and the vast unknowing needs concepts to be navigated by. These concepts are usually born out of mathematical objects. The math turns out to be perfect, only the background remains in the dark.

‘Dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’, big ‘unknowns’. Embarrassingly big. Most probably they are themselves intrinsic misunderstandings about the state of space.
It’s like only a hundred years ago they (Einstein and all of them) thought the Milky Way presented the whole universe, now it is close to a speck in infinity; but the whole dichotomy of big and small has no meaning in nature.
The earth is a speck in the universe, but it is the centre because we are here. A star is huge but stupid compared to us. The material universe is a lot simpler than a cell in our brain.

So scientists use a lot of key-words and concepts in their communications which may have no meaning whatsoever and are often even blatantly self-contradictory (vacuum-energy) or obscure, for instance the mentioned notorious ‘Dark matter’  which is in reality, as I argued, ‘unexplained inertia’ (inertial deep fields) and no matter at all (chapter). The unexplained inertia is the radiation of the stars in the galaxy, all that energy is mass and it is this inertial mass of energy that slows the rotation of the galaxy.
When you start with giving a problem the wrong name, forming the wrong concept, what do you hope to solve? You are bound to look in the direction of the past, of your wrong principles.

Abolishing the aether concept has been a century long disaster in physics and continues to be so, because Einstein said you could do without ether in special relativity, but that is not true for general relativity, as he many times has emphasized himself later, it needs an ether.
It seems not to occur to scientists that a theory with so many crucial named ‘unknowns’ as they adhere to today, should invite to wondering whether there may be something deeply wrong with the theory itself, that is, its whole conceptual foundation. They stare themselves blind on the confirmations of their theories, they ignore the refutations and the growing number of ‘unknowns’. The situation is even worse when age-old intuitive concepts get abolished because they cannot be measured, yet, concepts that could have saved their theories a lot of trouble, like the ‘aether-concept’, kicked out and ridiculed by Mach, initially ‘refuted’ by Einstein, and the logical positivists (Wiener Kreis), but now dearly missed.
**********
Inertia
The elimination of time as scientific concept does not make it go away from our successful formulas, so which  physical reality is still there that can be measured, when time is ‘out’, as I argue? Inertia, in my view. Inertia is the real ‘king of transformation’, the real ‘rate of change’, the actual source of duration. Inertia is linked to gravity, together they create a local rate of change. It is the substance of the Earth and its inertial field that cause the rotation on which one time-cycle is based, the day, the other cycle is the heartbeat, for the second, only two cycles can create a time-frame.
(Space and time on the moon is experienced differently by humans, because of different gravity and space curvature in my analysis).

Every movement on earth falls under (pressure-) gravity  and is harmonized by it, it takes energy to stand up and stay on foot and walk, it affects all of nature equally in principle, we’re built to withstand its tiring condition. (If ever there will be a ‘permanently’ living community on the moon I am sure that maybe already in the first generation skeletal differences will appear, weakening of muscles and bones, humankind cannot survive without the natural resonances of the living earth, that energize us via the environment, I believe.
[[(Long stay in space comes with deterioration of faculties is now already the experience, even cancer occurs in some, the radiation up there is deadly, and may seep through, etc. The longest one-go stay sofar is 1 year and 2 months, most days in total, nearly 2,5 years, all Russians)]]

Inertia is the reflection-field of an object, its anchor in the fabric of space, which tunes the space-pixalls for the object’s passage. The source of inertia is spin, like we see it in the gyroscope. Spin creates ‘particulars’, the space-pixalls, space-grain-fields (there are four types of spin in quantum theory, spin ½ for ‘matter’ and  0, 1, 2  for forces , but since there are neither ‘forces’  nor ‘matter’ here, only geometry remains).
Since spin in this analysis is a fundamental aspect of space  itself, I see it as a dimension. (Possibly it can, as vortex, replace the ‘curled up’ space as concept of a 5th dimension (Kaluza/Klein), I can, as often, only suggest here.)
When we realize that matter is space itself we can see spin as a property of space. This spin is essential to sustain the fabric of space, the pixalls. A pixall without spin is impossible, the pixall ‘is’ spin and ‘creates’ field, without spin it annihilates, without field no distance, no space. The pixall ‘hides’ the pure light in its vortex. Pixalls are tiny black-holes in every point of space that hide the pure light in the curvature of their vortexes, which open and ‘spark’ when touched by the right vibration (or something like that… or totally different….).

Gravitational field

A gravitational field is the ‘force-field’ that exists in the space around every mass or group of masses

Type 1   Grav.field (GF) caused by an active mass on an inert mass
Type 2  GF  caused by an active mass on an active mass
Type 3  GF caused by an inert mass on an inert mass

 

********

Photon? What photon?
The photon concept does not stand up to scrutiny when you look at things without preconceived ideas. Einstein admitted at the end of his life he still did not know what the photon was and did not believe anyone else did.  I think he was right and that the situation has not changed ever-since either, because, as I will argue, the photon does not exist in the way science treats it.
I suppose the reader agrees with me that this photon must be seen as a tiny ball/spark of light ( I’ve seen them in artist impressions as elongated white tubes with aerodynamic pointed ends, cigar-like), anyway an individual entity speeding at lightspeed, shining in all or many directions at the same time and because there is no other way of conceiving it (since how could it ever be a torch shining in one direction, which one?), this is also the reason it must be a wrong concept. I will tell you why: because we only see light that comes in our direction, like a wave. How could there be shadows when it were differently, how could we have the dark nights that we have, thank heaven, if it were light balls/sparks shining all around when passing our planet coming from the sun. No the earth blocks the rays of the sun and causes darkness.
The whole solar system is bathing in light from the sun, see our daytime, but also look at the full moon and the planets at night, so far away but bathing in sunlight with us in the dark, also our galaxy, bathing in the light of billons of stars, with us in the dark.

Still we see only the reflected light from the moon and we miss all the bright source light that is passing the earth, us, by. How could that ever be possible when photons were centres of light shining in all directions!? The astronauts on the moon were amazed at the darkness in the shadow and the blazing light when they put an arm out of the shadow, ‘as if in another dimension’ they said.
The photon is another persistent fallacy of scientists and obviously a fallacy that with some simple logical empirical reasoning is easy to expose and do away with. The photon as individual entity does not exist, period.
There are galaxies just like our Milky Way, that we perceive as stars, ‘solid’ balls of light, but like our own galaxy they  must appear dark inside to an observer. How is that possible? How can such a source of bright light at a distance be dark inside? Because we only see the light that comes our way, directly or reflected.
On ‘pictures’ of our own galaxy (see below) you also see this glowing centre of light, but we don’t see that (nothing to do with dust clouds), it’s all a matter of very great distance where the light of individual stars starts to overlap giving the appearance of a solid ball like the sun. The stars in our galaxy are just too close by and far apart to overlap, that is why our galaxy seems dark inside to us, we cannot see the ‘invisible light’ that passes us by, but it is there, also like the stars we don’t see.  See picture below, where it is still hard to imagine there is really so much darkness at the centre and around us.
In my model (pure) light is emitted by the (toroid) space-pixalls when they open their cores by being aligned through their axes, like beads on a string, the string is the ‘light-ray’. This opening occurs when the deep-field through the electro-magnetic field-state adopts the ‘light-mode’, like it can be in ‘electron-mode’, ‘quark-mode’ etc. The specific wave configuration configures the space-pixalls and when observed together with the intermittent wave pattern of the deep-field-resonance this creates the illusion of discrete quanta, but in reality the wave pattern opens, in the case of light, the core of a pixall and reveals the zero-dimension of pure light. So it turns out space is saturated with ‘invisible light’ or ‘dark light’; light which is invisible, either because unexcited pixalls hide their light through curvature of the vortex of their tiny black holes, or their orientation by the EM-wave-field is such that we don’t see their sparking cores (we’re in the ‘shadow’). In short, there could not be shadows, nor night-time darkness if light were ‘moving photons’ shining all around. Again, the photon does not exist, it is another conceptual fallacy. QED.

Note:
The problem of ‘dark matter and dark energy’ disappears because a) the massive inertia of the ‘reflection-fields’, b) plus the permanent electro-magnetic excitation of the space-fabric (dark matter) and c) the massive amount of energy involved (dark energy) shows that the term ‘dark matter/energy’ should properly be renamed ‘ effects of invisible light’. What it means is that the inertia and radiation pressure of ‘cosmic space’ is 95 times bigger than scientists calculated for the mass of the ‘visible’ matter content of the universe; an embarrassing blunder. The whole idea of matter behind the SM is simply wrong, ‘matter’ does not exist as a self-substance in our model, it is space itself being occupied and taking shape within the mathematical ground-possibilities.
It is, for instance, electromagnetic field pressure (pressure-gravity) which appears as expansion of space, but is in fact an optic illusion. Space does not expand linearly, but is locally in states of contraction or expansion; an internally dynamic but overall static condition.
It is about decay and renewal (of space), permanent creation, but it all rests in the infinite Mind, the Pure Light.
*******
Wave-particle duality
The pixalls of space ’embody’ the ‘wave-configuration’, like pixels do ’embody’ a picture on a screen, which we identify as ‘matter’ or ‘energy’. So here the ‘wave-particle duality’ becomes obsolete, because the wave is the ‘form’ of the moving ‘object’, whereas the particle, the mass, is in the pixalls that constitute the object at a certain point in transformation/transmigration.
When the ‘object’ is hit by an observation, it are its accidental constituent pixalls which are ‘materializing’ in that observation, falsely suggesting it consists of these specific entities permanently.
Because the contents of the form is ‘fleeting’ one can maintain that the form is ‘empty’ by nature. The river is only a form, the fleeting water is the ever-changing substance; without a ‘body of water’ there is a riverbed, no river.  So we see here how the Buddhist concept of ‘emptiness’ can be derived from an analysis of physical reality, that the form has no ‘eigen-substance’, that it is empty. Its content is ‘fleeting’, impermanent, in constant renewal, like it is so visible in living organisms, where all kinds of cells constantly renew, but all in their own time-frames, their own uniform motion, there own ‘Chi’ you might say. Renewal is the basic pattern, also in the cosmos, it is the ‘permanent creation’. So here we see that ‘Chi’ as well as ‘Emptiness ‘, both central concepts from two completely different mystical cultural backgrounds, that both these concepts have meaning in our ontological description of the ‘basics’ of reality.
This is what I try to initiate: a scientific model and language which absorbs all time mystic intuitions and transforms those into a spiritual philosophy of science and the world.
********
Complementarity
A great theoretical physicist, the Dane Niels Bohr, was convinced of the fundamental state of complementarity in Nature. The Chinese Yin-Yang symbol expressed it all for him. In my approach something similar happens where the 5-D space, (cosmic) black, is internally bordered by a zero-D space, (pure light) white, which mutually inter-penetrate in rings or spheres (stars). The pixall is the white spot in the black space, the opening to the infinity of pure light. The black spot is the black hole in the pure light, opening to the infinity of black space.
To put this in a different way we can use the horn-torus, here called ‘corus’, as a model to visualize how to turn our 4-D space ‘inside-out’, it is going as ‘surface’ into the curved vortex of the corus-centre and comes out on the other side as ‘pure light’. As I‘ve put it elsewhere: There is no other side to the centre of the Earth, it’s where the zero-dimension begins. All signals bounce off the core of the earth because of this, they cannot penetrate through the centre because there is no ‘other side’ to the centre, only infinite density, the zero dimension of pure light.
This is a daring perspective. It means that every surface is the ultimate boundary of 4-D space, behind which the zero dimension begins. It is the consequence of the fact that 4-D space is bounded on the inside and boundless on the outside, because it is a complement of the zero-dimension of pure light. Projected on the horn-torus we imagine the ground we stand on as the concave surface inside the torus, its volume is our space and is bordered by one point, if we go through this point (black hole) we get outside the volume of our space- torus into the density of the pure light, the zero-dimension, being everywhere.
In the theory of the black-holes ‘entropy’ plays a surprising part, where it is stated that the entropy of the black hole is a state of maximum information. According to Dutch Nobel laureate Gerard tHooft, originator of the ‘holographic principle’ in cosmology, this means that this information must be compressed on the surface, the border, of the black hole as in ‘holography’. tHooft wonders though how we can ever get to the information on the ‘surface of the universe’, describing what happens in our world. When you though see the picture inside-out, the border of the universe is on (behind) every surface, it is the boundary of space itself by its matter-state, so the surface of our earth is also the surface of the universe.
The surface of the physical universe is the ground we are standing on. We have to realize that we always observe surfaces in space. We are kind of boundaries ourselves.
We are ‘die Grenze der Welt’, as Wittgenstein put it, the ‘boundary of the world’,  where, as I argue the zero-dimension opens, the mind, the pure light. Every time you cut something open you get a new surface, you never get to the inside of matter, until you reach the space-pixall, itself a border-point of space. The space-pixall is something like the old atom, it cannot be cut up, it can only annihilate, ‘uncurl’, releasing pure light and be replaced by a new one in the open point, the deep-field cannot be damaged.
It is though nearly wrong to speak of individual pixalls, since they only exist in a field, not independently. The deep-field when damaged heals immediately through environmentally induced spin forming the black hole of the pixall, there is no true individuality at this level, spin creates seeming individuality.
I think the geometry of the horn-torus, with its total surface bordered by only one point reflecting the whole curved surface can be of great value in the holographic/information approach (Suskind) which seems to be very close and compatible with the tools I use to pin down the space-pixall.
In excited state the pixall is a horn-toroid field, like the magnetic field around the earth. The magnetism is the fundamental toroid geometry of space, not a force, but a state of absorption and emission, of double circular motion, a state of stability.
In string theory they think to have found the smallest possible circle (T-duality), that is a good candidate for my space-pixall

Nothing shows the existence of the aether as does magnetism in its field lines and electricity in its plasmas. (Tesla knew Einstein was wrong about ‘abolishing’ the aether, which he saw as gaseous, probably because of the electromagnetic plasma’s he created)
The system I reveal on this website is complementary to the Pythagorean ratios as this complementarity got forever embodied in the three pyramids of Giza where the full theorem is completely inherent in the ratios of the different pyramids: The Great and Third Pyramid express the above most important ‘Lost Giza Theorem’ whereas the Second Pyramid expresses the lesser Pythagoras theorem, highlighting the prime 37. (274/2=137=100+37). Both concern squares, Pythagoras in relation to the triangle, the ‘Lost Theorem’ in relation to the circle and the sphere. It is inevitably more intricate and more important.
I guess that the ‘Lost Theorem’ of antiquity about interacting circles and squares that I present here in these pages will eventually prove more profound and far-reaching than Pythagoras’ triangles.

**********
The Qute  (square root substitute for Pi)
One of the first great gifts of the complementarity theorem of the ratios 11:7 and 10:9, is the square root of the new Pi-squared rational number 800/81, the general factor for the torus formula, and this root is 3.14 26980…. (20V2/9), I named it Qute (symbol Q) to bring it close to Pi and because it is a very ‘cute’ number as will be shown.
It is, so far, the only ‘irrational’ number in the system, but being one of my ‘magic’ numbers it works wonders in rationalizing formulas with Pi, which are otherwise not insightful in clear natural number ratios.
For instance Kepler’s density coefficient in packing theory : π/√18 = 0.740481… suddenly becomes rational as 0.74074074 = 20/ 27, so that you have a cube of 3 cubes (27 cubes) holding 20 balls of volume size of the cube, that kind of thing, suddenly it becomes  tangible and so by being square root irrational itself, Qute is a key factor in ‘rationalizing’ other square-root-2 numbers.
(Note here that the cubes morph into balls with equal volume, this is a mathematical transformation.)
Another packing grade with number 27 is that of 7 circles in a hexagon, this is supposed to be π/√12 = 0,906899..., but becomes 10√6/ 27 = 0.907218… or with a rationalized V6 = 2.44948 → 2425/990 = 2.44949494….. to 2.45 = 49 / 20, so density packing becomes 49 : 54 (27×2) =0.9074074074… and we see that the number 27 is prominent in this packing density as well. See the difference is only in the ten thousandths (0.0005084…).  There is a definite resemblance of the two in factor 27.
In fact these are universal constants and this throws a new light on the 27/3700 of the fine structure constant, a dimensionless universal constant, with again 27.
(Or more specifically √(27/3700) = 0.085424219... see R.Feynman, which is extremely close to the scientific value, though could change slightly over time, which makes my value even more interesting as a theoretical resonance value)
This is how revealing this calculator works. It is all based on the clear and close whole number approximation of the ratio of the perimeter of the circle and its inscribed square as 10:9.
It also means: “the mathematical square was discovered by the Neolithic cosmologists”.
The ratio 10:9 is closely related to the repunits (1111….1111) as 10/9 is 1.11111111….. 100/9= 11.11111…., soon the decimals become irrelevant so any power of 10, minus 1 , divided by nine, is the formula of the repunits

After 22/7 as the perfect rational ratio of circumference and diameter and 11/7 the ratio of half circle and diameter, then this 10/9 ratio between square side and quarter circle was the great scientific discovery in deep-antiquity (and: for me!) and this is what made the integration of circle and square, sphere and cube, globe and pyramid, possible in integer ratios, which more than anything reflected the mathematical cosmic order, with the exquisite cosmic numbers 7, 9 , 10 and 11
Diameter and diagonal suddenly were the same thing.

This great find and its numerical solution in 99 (9×11) and 140 (10×14) as rational substitutes (140/99=1.41414… and 99/70= 1.41428….) for square root(2) (1.41421…, right in the middle), all went lost because the Pythagorean (Second Pyramid) precision was superior, that is: in Euclidean space and the Mind of man.

However when circle and square are taken as 2-D representations of respectively a sphere and a horn-torus, then the model becomes a universal representation of the vibration patterns and interferences of sphere and torus on the largest and the smallest scales, this is the ‘raison d’etre’ of the space-pixall (space-particle), the ‘substance’ of the permanent creation.
This is why this model is so crucially important, it places the torus ‘squarely’ in the ‘Circle of creation’, sphere and torus are the fundamental geometries of space vibration; that is the message.

 

**********

**********

**********