Pray for Peace. War is evil. War is crazy. Pray for Peace. No war with Iran.Nov 13, 2021, 2:41:11 PM

Blood Moons? Sure why not see a few of those rare occurrence each year for a few years..

Black holes?? Sure we are falling into one or more of them..

For those not familiar with time. I will be celebrating my 4.5 billionth birthday March 28. Time is awkward..

The Tipler cylinder was discovered as a solution to the equations of general relativity by Willem Jacob van Stockum in 1936 and Kornel Lanczos in 1924, but not recognized as allowing closed timelike curves until an analysis by Frank Tipler in 1974. Tipler showed in his 1974 paper, "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation" that in a spacetime containing a massive, infinitely long cylinder which was spinning along its longitudinal axis, the cylinder should create a frame-dragging effect. This frame-dragging effect warps spacetime in such a way that the light cones of objects in the cylinder's proximity become tilted, so that part of the light cone then points backwards along the time axis on a space time diagram. Therefore a spacecraft accelerating sufficiently in the appropriate direction can travel backwards through time along a closed timelike curve or CTC.

Rotating Cylinder for Causality Violation

Closed timelike curve formation

using rotating cylinder model

CTC's are associated, in Lorentzian manifolds which are interpreted physically as spacetimes, with the possibility of causal anomalies such as going back in time and potentially shooting your own grandfather, although paradoxes might be avoided using some constraint such as the Novikov self-consistency principle. They have an unnerving habit of appearing in some of the most important exact solutions in general relativity, including the Kerr vacuum (which models a rotating black hole) and the van Stockum dust (which models a cylindrically symmetrical configuration of rotating pressureless fluid or dust).

An objection to the practicality of building a Tipler cylinder was discovered by Stephen Hawking, who posited a conjecture showing that according to general relativity it is impossible to build a time machine in any finite region that satisfies the weak energy condition, meaning that the region contains no exotic matter with negative energy.

What is CERN but a large single Tipler cylinder on one reality however when space passes from a different reality the cylinder grows.. meaning? Each time you turn on CERN it is not just one single cylinder but according to Drakes equation 10 to the power 193 or higher of realities pushing a soul through space.. TO DO WHAT? tell humanity to stop being evil? Does not seem to be working. To tell the world that the planned extinction is happening right this moment , on the other hand, does not involve any negative energy. Tipler's original solution involved a cylinder of infinite length, which is easier to analyze mathematically, and although Tipler suggested that a finite cylinder might produce closed timelike curves if the rotation rate were fast enough, he did not prove this. But Hawking argues that because of his conjecture, "it can't be done with positive energy density everywhere! I can prove that to build a finite time machine, you need negative energy." Hawking's proof appears in his 1992 paper on the chronology protection conjecture, where he examines "the case that the causality violations appear in a finite region of spacetime without curvature singularities" and proves that "there will be a Cauchy horizon that is compactly generated and that in general contains one or more closed null geodesics which will be incomplete. One can define geometrical quantities that measure the Lorentz boost and area increase on going round these closed null geodesics. If the causality violation developed from a noncompact initial surface, the averaged weak energy condition must be violated on the Cauchy horizon."

To fall into a black hole.. Earth tilt is showing the decent.. Few people make it through.. I have done this a few times now. I expect if I survive again I will be blind for a few days again.. Not something but if I recall in some billion years in the future it was something.. I wrote about it but no one remembers what I wrote..

Tilt of the earth - https://www.timeanddate.com/ast.../axial-tilt-obliquity.html

Earth's Obliquity Today. Today, on July 11, 2021 at noon, Earth's axial tilt, or mean obliquity was 23.43648° or 23°26'11.3". Earth's mean obliquity today is about 0.00001°, or 0.04", less than 30 days ago. The Arctic and Antarctic circles today are 1.2 m (4 ft) closer to the poles, and the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn are

An end of the system of things? The mark of the beast. I however heard of something recently.. I wonder about surviving it.

I know I did not survive the future. I wonder about the past.

Th question I think that I find hard to adjust to is falling down a nebula column. You see at the top I am out say 172,000, 86,000, to coming out the bottom at 6,000, 13,000, 21,000 and now 24,000 to 26,000 then 26,450 to 27,000 to 28,000 light years in a smaller pasat which God has complete control of due to his flash freezing these galaxies to transport souls back in time to some other story line. You are nuts.. But, of course never the less sliding up and down a nebula column is like falling into a rabbit hole.. One never knows where one is suppose to end up nor who is in charge nor what is to happen next. Sort of like a bird flying south for the winter. Is the land good, bad or ugly? Will I have a nest or will I have to build another nest? Sort of like how large is the galaxy and what is at th center of the galaxy. One black hole? 10,000 small black holes? Two super massive black holes? As un 26,000 times the size of our sun, a black hole eating a sun similar size of 26000 size of the sun. And and here is the kicker just when did earth get made and when did earth hit the next glaxy? All this can be t Tracked in my facebook if they did not keep on deleting information.

https://www.minds.com/Talon123/blog/interesting-1040976451703918592?

I am not sure which makes me more weirded out. That here you are falling into a black hole - and no one seems to know the distance exactly to the closest blackhole- or and here is the possibility each earth I visit the hole gets closer because that is where they shattered reality to begin with. Is the closest black hole 1000 lightyears away? Or 700 light years away or ? That distance record was shattered last week, by trinary system HR 6819: two stars and a black hole 1,000 light-years distant.This artist’s impression shows the orbits of the objects in the HR 6819 triple system. This system... [+] is made up of an inner binary with one star (orbit in blue) and a newly discovered black hole (orbit in red), as well as a third object, another star, in a wider orbit (also in blue).

Mandela effected friends, scientists, and oddity readers. I am taking a long holiday. I would like to post something that has been on my mind for a while. At first I sought out math legends in my world on your worlds. They never replied so here are the answers that I have found. In my world the universe was expanding. 180 degree triangle was all there was meaning the universe was contained and supposedly expanding. Here there are more than 180 degree triangles meaning the universe is in a box. In my world the milky way was expanding not contracting. Here the milky way is contracting. At the center of the milky way no one knew. Here guess what it is a large black hole. If you do not understand what I am getting at for Jesus Christ sake read realize this mind is from the other side of the black hole. I will post the reference in comments. The other five questions I wrote and the answer is radical enough to surprise me even. How many mes or yous or earths are there. I will be finding out sooner then I expected meaning there is a rationale why I stopped asking and looked for my own answers. Read the comments. It has been a nice time with you folks.

thanks for liking my post. so few people like or read my stuff I was getting tired. anyway a short story for you.. Clinton Siegle

22 June 2016, 05:57

6 22 Finding things differently - one there is a chance reptiles are going to replace humanity. Two there is no God per diety that we worship. Three change is not what I would expect - ie there is a brain holding each universe in a game pattern that can not be broken in most cases. ie money, accounts, bills, lost opportunities, seem similar enough. Four personsalities.. they change along with shifting earth.. The butterfly affect is truly amazing to watch. I thought the mountain moved. Then I started paying attention to where I was and realized my location shifted even if I was in the same house. Meaning earth shifts moutains etc tend to stay the same. Fifth shifting to other people reality is not as scary as it was for a while. I am tired of being scared and being yelled at.. life if there is a soul which I believe there might be is teaching me something.. if I learn it I will pass it on.

Reply

author Clinton Siegle

22 June 2016, 14:14

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 18 (4 days ago)

to Sky

Mr. Moon,

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 13 (9 days ago)

to orgoneproducts1, skybooks

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Dear Mr. Moon, Mr Preston B. Nichols,

I am writing to you because I can find you on the internet.

Since 5.20 I have been traveling to different people's realities is the best to explain.

Locations, braning of products, colors, sounds, taste and personalities all have changed several times along with my feelings towards this adventure.

I am wondering my eyesight is getting better ere but worst for the guy tat was me today. What and how do I get back to my timeframe?

Also can I sue CERN for these affects to my life meaning I have discovered a few things that I make me going home a question that I am unsure how to reflect on.

https://cosmofunnel.com/stories/a-dairy-of-sorts-92183 Remember I am blind in one eye and typing this with size 350 font so if some words are wrong I apolgieis.

Tank you and hopefully you will respong

Sky Books

Jun 13 (9 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Sorry, but we do not have such time capabilities.

Only thing I could suggest would be getting grounded in the reality you are experiencing.

Suggestion: CONTROL YOUR BREATH = CONTROL YOUR LIFE

Best,

Peter

NEW VIDEOS JUST RELEASED: Learn the science of time travel in Peter Moon's brand new and easy to understand videos "Time Travel Explained". To sign up: up: http://zeqyedx3.megaph.com/

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 13 (9 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Peter,

I am not interested in being here.

These people are mean.

I can not tell a joke.

They yell at me.

I am not from here.

I want to go home.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 13 (9 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Peter,

Have you read what I have been going through?

I am not enjoying this stop at all.

You say focus and breath.

I am more interested in the computer simulation set up in 1950s that was supposedly working for Dr. John Von Neumann.

Since 57 the program should be easy to duplicate in todays world. Any ideas on who to ask and how to get out of here?

Thanks,

Clinton

Sky Books

Jun 13 (9 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

You might find the same or a similar situation if you were indeed able to escape.

This is why life presents us challenges.

Try breathing......it is the basis of life.....

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

I breath meditate with focus fingers daily.

I do not expect to be yelled at all in this life or the next.

If magic is what it is then blood and tears is what I will offer this world.

Not one scream not one yell. I do not do that to others and I do not expect that for myself.

My magic worked wonders in Michigan in 2008. Let us see if this world can handle me.

Sky Books

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

It is good that you breathe.

Have you learned and/or contemplated "The Inner Smile" - this can lead to a rather unbridled joy.

The world can and has handled everything. We have to learn to "handle" the world and then harmonize with it.

Time travel might help but there is much to learn about it and especially the psychology of such.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Marina von Neumann Whitman has a computer from her father some place.

I am more of a practical person.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Pete

Question how far back in time can you go?

Also, can you jump to another universe?

thanks

Sky Books

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

I cannot travel in time personally.

Theoretically, there are no limitations.

The hardware I cannot account for.

Clinton SiegleJun 14 (8 days ago)

Preston Nichols Curious who is the guy you spoke to on this site? http://www....

Kevin CourtoisJun 14 (8 days ago)

Clinton, I am not preston. I currently do not have any contact info on him.

Sky Books

Jun 14 (8 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Don't know whose that site is. Sounds like extracts from Preston and possibly Al.

John von Neumann is long dead.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

But according to the interview he is or was a consultant in 1989.

I know he died in 1956. But according to the article the person speaking saw him as late as 1989.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

PS His daughter is currently in Spain she gave me these two peoples name

Peter Lax or Freeman Dyson

- do you know either?

Sky Books

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

No, never heard of them and I have heard von Neumann's daughter is not accepting of his secret life, but I have no contact with her personally.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

I am a bit more personal.

She messaged me from Spain on facebook.

I do not know her personally.

The wildness here is the email access.

Three days ago I had never heard of Dr. von Neumann.

Three days ago I had never heard of you nor any additional project outside of ^Philadelphia the Montauk Project is something new to my timeline.

In my timeline the Mandela Effect showed up as a google date 5 16 on 5 20 when I realized something is up I was number 402 viewing some guy talking about changes etc.

Meaning Mr. Books the world I came up in both Mandela and Montauk was or were not part of it. Meaning I am what they considered a conspiracy nut and would have known of you or Preston Nichols.

My world Santiago, Chile is right under San Francisco 11 hours by some airlines and 9.5 hours by others.

My world there is no two New Zealand island it is one island.

Japan is south of South Korean there is no Japan Sea.

The world is strange and marvalous but at times I must accept where I am at. The difference how nutty your politics is.

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

https://cosmofunnel.com/dreams/dear-journal-92330

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 15 (7 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

You know worlds change - I recognized finally a name. Pruitt - https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshua-pruitt-89a384107

In my timeline he was boss https://cosmofunnel.com/stories/mentally-i-was-there-92342

Clinton Siegle <>

Jun 16 (6 days ago)

to Sky

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Mr. Books,

I have listened to some of your interviews now.

I am sure if you would have existed in my time frame I would have read your books.

I am interested in the Atlantis library. The series of books - any truth or clues as to if the library would be opened and to whom?

My sercet clearance, sub contract non disclosure forms etc were updated when I was at the Missiles Defense Agency.

Whom would I be looking to talk to get access to the library?

Thanks,

Clinton

Checking to see if we have spoken before?

If so can I ask other then breathing what else would you suggest to my prior question.

If not thank you for your time.

Sky Books

Jun 18 (4 days ago)

to me

We have not spoken before.

o me

This message has been deleted. Restore message

Ask the local librarian on how you can improve your researching skills. There are a lot of libraries in the world and one thing leads to another.

Best advice I have given is in my book "The White Bat" which teaches one to integrate both sides of the brain.

NEW VIDEOS JUST RELEASED: Learn the science of time travel in Peter Moon's brand new and easy to understand videos "Time Travel Explained". To sign up: up: http://zeqyedx3.megaph.com/

Reply

author Clinton Siegle

22 June 2016, 19:16

Hot Big Bang :

In the 1930's it was discovered by Edwin Hubble that all galaxies have a positive redshift. In other words, all galaxies were receding from the Milky Way. By the Copernican principle, we deduce that all galaxies are receding from each other, or we live in a dynamic, expanding Universe. The expansion of the Universe is described by a very simple equation called Hubble's law; the velocity of the recession of a galaxy is equal to a constant times its distance (v=Hd). Where the constant is called Hubble's constant and relates distance to velocity in units of light-years.

The discovery of an expanding Universe implies the obvious, that the Universe must have an initial starting point, a Creation. A point in the past when the radius of the Universe was zero. Since all the matter in the Universe must have been condensed in a small region, along with all its energy, this moment of Creation is referred to as the Big Bang.

A common question that is asked when considering a Creation point in time is ``What is before the Big Bang?''. This type is question is meaningless or without context. For example, it is similar to asking ``What is north of the North Pole?''. The question itself can not be phrased in a meaningful way.

Four main pieces of scientific evidence support the Big Bang theory:

Olber's paradox

expanding Universe (Hubble's law)

chemical abundances of light elements

cosmic microwave background

The Big Bang theory has been supported by numerous observations and, regardless of our final theories of the Universe, remains the core element to our understanding of the past. Note that a Creation point automatically implies two things: 1) the Universe has a finite age (about 15 billion years) and 2) the Universe has a finite size.

Geometry of the Universe :

How can the Universe be finite in size? What is ``outside'' the Universe? The answer to both these questions involves a discussion of the intrinsic geometry of the Universe.

There are basically three possible shapes to the Universe; a flat Universe (Euclidean or zero curvature), a spherical or closed Universe (positive curvature) or a hyperbolic or open Universe (negative curvature). Note that this curvature is similar to spacetime curvature due to masses, like stars, in that the entire mass of the Universe determines the curvature.

All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel lines

never meeting (flat or Euclidean)

must cross (spherical)

always divergent (hyperbolic)

or one can think of triangles where for a flat Universe the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees, in a closed Universe the sum must be greater than 180, in an open Universe the sum must be less than 180.

Its important to remember that the above images are 2D shadows of 3D space, it is impossible to draw the geometry of the Universe, it can only be described by mathematics. All possible Universes are finite since there is only a finite age and, therefore, a limiting horizon. The geometry may be flat or open, and therefore infinite, but the amount of mass and time in our Universe is finite.

Density of the Universe:

The description of the various geometries of the Universe (open, closed, flat) also relate to their futures. There are two possible futures for our Universe, continual expansion (open and flat), turn-around and collapse (closed). Note that flat is the specific case of expansion to zero velocity.

The key factor that determines which history is correct is the amount of mass/gravity for the Universe as a whole. If there is sufficient mass, then the expansion of the Universe will be slowed to the point of stopping, then retraction to collapse. If there is not a sufficient amount of mass, then the Universe will expand forever without stopping. The flat Universe is one where there is exactly the balance of mass to slow the expansion to zero, but not for collapse.

The parameter that is used to measure the mass of the Universe is the critical density, Omega. Omega is usually expressed as the ratio of the mean density observed to that of the density in a flat Universe.

Given all the range of values for the mean density of the Universe, it is strangely close to the density of a flat Universe. And our theories of the early Universe (see inflation) strongly suggest the value of Omega should be exactly equal to one. If so our measurements of the density by galaxy counts or dynamics are grossly in error and remains one of the key problems for modern astrophysics.

Birth of the Universe :

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. Thus, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. its not possible to `build' another Universe) and, thus, our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from centuries.

Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang). However, the time before this undefined in our current science and, in particular, we have no solid understanding of the origin of the Universe (i.e. what started or `caused' the Big Bang). At best, we can describe our efforts to date as probing around the `edges' of our understand in order to define what we don't understand, much like a blind person would explore the edge of a deep hole.

Cosmic Singularity :

One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as "How did the Universe get started?" is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent, that the actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality whose properties may always remain beyond our understanding.

Extrapolation from the present to the moment of Creation implies an origin of infinite density and infinite temperature (all the Universe's mass and energy pushed to a point of zero volume). Such a point is called the cosmic singularity.

Infinites are unacceptable as physical descriptions but our observers are protected by the principle of cosmic censorship. This means that singularities exists only mathematically and not as a physical reality that we can observe or measure. A typical solution to this problem is an event horizon as with black holes.

Planck Era :

The earliest moments of Creation are where our modern physics breakdown, where `breakdown' means that our theories and laws have no ability to describe or predict the behavior of the early Universe. Our everyday notions of space and time cease to be valid.

Although we have little knowledge of the Universe before the Planck time, we can calculate when this era ends and when our physics begins. This occurs when the Universe is at the Planck scale in its expansion.

Remember, there is no `outside' to the Universe. One could, in theory, measure the size of the Universe much like you measure the radius of the Earth. You don't dig a hole in the Earth and lower a tape measure, you measure the circumference (take an airplane ride) of the Earth and divide by 2 pi (i.e. C = 2 x pi x radius).

The Universe expands from the moment of the Big Bang, but until the Universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, there is no time or space. Time remains undefined, space is compactified. Superstring theory maintains that the Universe had 10 dimensions during the Planck era, which collapses into 4 at the end of the Planck era (think of those extra 6 dimensions as being very, very small hyperspheres inbetween the space between elementary particles, 4 big dimensions and 6 little tiny ones).

During the Planck era, the Universe can be best described as a quantum foam of 10 dimensions containing Planck length sized black holes continuously being created and annihilated with no cause or effect. In other words, try not to think about this era.

Unification :

One of the reasons our physics is incomplete during the Planck era is a lack of understand of the unification of the forces of Nature during this time. At high energies and temperatures, the forces of Nature become symmetric. This means the forces resemble each other and become similar in strength, they unify.

An example of unification is the consider the interaction of the weak and electromagnetic forces. At low energy, photons and W,Z particles are the force carriers for the electromagnetic and weak forces. The W and Z particles are very massive and, thus, require alot of energy (E=mc**2). At high energies, photons take on similar energies to W and Z particles, and the forces become unified into the electroweak force.

There is the expectation that all the nuclear forces of matter (strong, weak and electromagnetic) unify at extremely high temperatures under a principle known as Grand Unified Theory, an extension of quantum physics of as yet undiscovered relationships between the strong and electroweak forces.

The final unification resolves the relationship between quantum forces and gravity (supergravity).

In the early Universe, the physics to predict the behavior of matter is determined by which forces are unified and the form that they take. The interactions just at the edge of the Planck era are ruled by supergravity, the quantum effects of mini-black holes. After the separation of gravity and nuclear forces, the spacetime of the Universe is distinct from matter and radiation.

Spacetime Foam :

The first moments after the Planck era are dominated by conditions were spacetime itself is twisted and distorted by the pressures of the extremely small and dense Universe.

Most of these black holes and wormholes are leftover from the Planck era, remnants of the event horizon that protected the cosmic singularity. These conditions are hostile to any organization or structure not protected by an event horizon. Thus, black holes are the only units that can survive intact under these conditions, and serve as the first building blocks of structure in the Universe, the first `things' that have individuality.

Based on computer simulations of these early moments, there is the prediction that many small, primordial black holes were created at this time with no large black holes (the Universe was too small for them to exist). However, due to Hawking radiation, the primordial black holes from this epoch have all decayed and disappeared by the present-day.

Matter arises at the end of the spacetime foam epoch as the result of superstrings, or loops in spacetime. The transformation is from ripping spacetime foam into black holes, which then transmute into elementary particles. Thus, there is a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry. Matter during this era is often called GUT matter to symbolize its difference from quarks and leptons and its existence under GUT forces.

Symmetry Breaking:

In the early Universe, pressures and temperature prevented the permanent establishment of elementary particles. Even quarks and leptons were unable to form stable objects until the Universe had cooled beyond the supergravity phase. If the fundamental building blocks of Nature (elementary particles) or spacetime itself were not permanent then what remained the same? The answer is symmetry.

Often symmetry is thought of as a relationship, but in fact it has its own identical that is preserved during the chaos and flux of the early Universe. Even though virtual particles are created and destroyed, there is always a symmetry to the process. For example, for every virtual electron that is formed a virtual positron (anti-electron) is also formed. There is a time symmetric, mirror-like quality to every interaction in the early Universe.

Symmetry also leads to conservation laws, and conservation laws limit the possible interactions between particles. Those imaginary processes that violate conservation laws are forbidden. So the existence of symmetry provides a source of order to the early Universe.

Pure symmetry is like a spinning coin. The coin has two states, but while spinning neither state is determined, and yet both states exist. The coin is in a state of both/or. When the coin hits the floor the symmetry is broken (its either heads or tails) and energy is released in the process.

The effect of symmetry breaking in the early Universe was a series of phase changes, much like when ice melts to water or water boils to stream. A phase change is the dramatic change in the internal order of a substance. When ice melts, the increased heat breaks the bonds in the lattice of water molecules, and the ice no longer holds its shape. Phase change in the early Universe occurs at the unification points of fundamental forces. The decoupling of those forces provides the energy input for the phase change.

With respect to the Universe, a phase change during symmetry breaking is a point where the characteristics and the properties of the Universe make a radical change. At the supergravity symmetry breaking, the Universe passed from the Planck era of total chaos to the era of spacetime foam. Spacetime was acquired during the phase transition. During the GUT symmetry breaking, mass and spacetime separated and particles came into existence.

Notice that as symmetry breaks, there is less order, more chaos. The march of entropy in the Universe apples to the laws of Nature as well as matter. The Universe at the time of the cosmic singularity was a time or pure symmetry, all the forces had equal strength, all the matter particles had the same mass (zero), spacetime was the same everywhere (although all twisted and convolved).

Inflation:

There are two major problems for the Big Bang model of the creation of the Universe. They are

The flatness problem relates to the density parameter of the Universe, . Values for can take on any number between 0.01 and 5 (lower than 0.01 and galaxies can't form, more than 5 and the Universe is younger than the oldest rocks). The measured value is near 0.2. This is close to an of 1, which is strange because of 1 is an unstable point for the geometry of the Universe.

the flatness problem

the horizon problem

Values slightly below or above 1 in the early Universe rapidly grow to much less than 1 or much larger than 1 (like a ball at the top of a hill). So the fact that the measured value of 0.2 is so close to 1 that we expect to find in the future that our measured value is too low and that the Universe has a value of exactly equal to 1 for stability. And therefore, the flatness problem is that some mechanism is needed to get a value for to be exactly one (to balance the pencil).

The horizon problem concerns the fact that the Universe is isotropic. No matter what distant corners of the Universe you look at, the sizes and distribution of objects is exactly the same (the Cosmological Principle). But there is no reason to expect this since opposite sides of the Universe are not causally connected, any information that is be transmitted from one side would not reach the other side in the lifetime of the Universe (limited to travel at the speed of light).

All the Universe has an origin at the Big Bang, but time didn't exist until after the Planck era. And by the end of that epoch, the Universe was already expanding such that opposite sides were not causally connected.

The solution to both the flatness and horizon problems is due to a phase of the Universe called inflation. Currently, inflation is the only theory that explains why the observable Universe is both homogeneous and causally connected. During inflation the Universe expanded a factor of 1054, so that our horizon now only sees a small piece of what was the total Universe from the Big Bang.

The cause of the inflation era was the symmetry breaking at the GUT unification point. At this moment, spacetime and matter separated and a tremendous amount of energy was released. This energy produced an overpressure that was applied not to the particles of matter, but to spacetime itself. Basically, the particles stood still as the space between them expanded at an exponential rate.

Note that this inflation was effectively at more than the speed of light, but since the expansion was on the geometry of the Universe itself, and not the matter, then there is no violation of special relativity. Our visible Universe, the part of the Big Bang within our horizon, is effectively a `bubble' on the larger Universe. However, those other bubbles are not physically real since they are outside our horizon. We can only relate to them in an imaginary, theoretical sense. They are outside our horizon and we will never be able to communicate with those other bubble universes.

Inflation solves the flatness problem because of the exponential growth. Imagine a highly crumbled piece of paper. This paper represents the Big Bang universe before inflation. Inflation is like zooming in of some very, very small section of the paper. If we zoom in to a small enough scale the paper will appear flat. Our Universe must be exactly flat for the same reason, it is a very small piece of the larger Big Bang universe.

The horizon problem is also solved in that our present Universe was simply a small piece of a larger Big Bang universe that was in causal connection before the inflation era. Other bubble universes might have very different constants and evolutionary paths, but our Universe is composed of a small, isotropic slice of the bigger Big Bang universe.

Reply

author Clinton Siegle

22 June 2016, 19:21

Is the Universe Closed? http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

The unboundedness of space has a greater empirical certainty than any experience of the external world, but its infinitude does not in any way follow from this; quite the contrary. Space would necessarily be finite if one assumed independence of bodies from position, and thus ascribed to it a constant curvature, as long as this curvature had ever so small a positive value.

B. Riemann, 1854

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". In order to arrive at a quasi-static distribution of matter he found it necessary to introduce the "cosmological term" to the field equations (as discussed in Section 5., so he based his analysis on the equations

where l is the cosmological constant. Before invoking the field equations we can consider the general form of a metric that is suitable for representing the large-scale structure of the universe. First, we ordinarily assume that the universe would appear to be more or less the same when viewed from the rest frame of any galaxy, anywhere in the universe (at the present epoch). This is sometimes called the Cosmological Principle.

Then, since the universe on a large scale appears (to us) highly homogenous and isotropic, we infer that these symmetries apply to every region of space. This greatly restricts the class of possible metrics. In addition, we can choose, for each region of space, to make the time coordinate coincide with the proper time of the typical galaxy in that region. Also, according to the Cosmological Principle, the coefficients of the spatial terms of the (diagonalized) metric should be independent of location, and any dependence on the time coordinate must apply symmetrically to all the space coordinates. From this we can infer a metric of the form

where s(t) is some (still to be determined) dimensionless scale factor dependent on time, and ds is the total space differential with no time dependence. In other words, the “shape” of the spatial metric is fixed, but the scale factor is a function of time. Recall that for a perfectly flat Euclidean space the differential line element is

where r2 = x2 + y2 + z2. On the other hand, if we want to allow our space (at a given coordinate time t) to have curvature, the Cosmological Principle suggests that the (large scale) curvature should be the same everywhere and in every direction. Thus the Gaussian curvature of every two-dimensional tangent subspace has the same value at every point. Now suppose we embed a Euclidean three-dimensional space (x,y,z) in a four-dimensional space (w,x,y,z) whose metric is

where k is either +1 or −1. If k = +1 the four-dimensional space is Euclidean, whereas if k = −1 it is pseudo-Euclidean (like the Minkowski metric). In either case the four-dimensional space is "flat", i.e., has zero Riemannian curvature. We then consider a three-dimensional subspace comprising a sphere (or pseudo-sphere), i.e., the locus of points satisfying the condition

where A is a constant characteristic length. From this we have w2 = A2 - kr2, and therefore

Substituting this into the four-dimensional line element above gives the metric for the three-dimensional sphere (or pseudo-sphere)

Taking this as the spatial part of our overall spacetime metric (2), replacing r with Ar (so r is now dimensionless), and defining R(t) = As(t), we arrive at

This metric, with k = +1 and R(t) = constant, was the basis of Einstein's 1917 paper, and it was subsequently studied by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 with both possible signs of k and with variable R(t). The general form was re-discovered by Robertson and Walker (independently) in 1935, so it is now often referred to as the Robertson-Walker metric. Notice that with k = +1 this metric essentially corresponds to polar coordinates on the "surface" of a sphere projected onto the "equatorial plane", so each value of r corresponds to two points, one in the Northern and one in the Southern hemisphere. We could remedy this by making the change of variable r ® r/(1 + kr2/4), which (in the case k = +1) amounts to stereographic projection from the North pole to a tangent plane at the South pole. In terms of this transformed radial variable the Robertson-Walker metric has the form

As noted above, Einstein originally assumed R(t) = constant, i.e., he envisioned a static un-changing universe. He also assumed the matter in the universe was roughly "stationary" at each point with respect to these cosmological coordinates, so the only non-zero component of the stress-energy tensor in these coordinates is Ttt = r where r is the density of matter (assumed to be uniform, in accord with the Cosmological Principle). On this basis, the field equations imply

Here the symbol R denotes the assumed constant value of R(t) (not to be confused with the Ricci curvature scalar). This explains why Einstein was originally led to introduce a non-zero cosmological constant l, because if we assume a static universe and the Cosmological Principle, the field equations of general relativity can only be satisfied if the density r is proportional to the cosmological constant. However, it was soon pointed out that this static model is unstable, so it is apriori unlikely to correspond to the physical universe. Moreover, astronomical observations subsequently indicated that the universe (on the largest observable scale) is actually expanding, so we shouldn't restrict ourselves to models withR(t) = constant. If we allow R(t) to be variable, then the original field equations, without the cosmological term (i.e., with l = 0), do have solutions. In view of this, Einstein decided the cosmological term was unnecessary and should be excluded.

Interestingly, George Gamow was working with Friedmann in Russia in the early 1920's, and later recalled that "Friedmann noticed that Einstein had made a mistake in his alleged proof that the universe must necessarily be stable". Specifically, Einstein had divided through an equation by a certain quantity, even though that quantity was zero under a certain set of conditions. As Gamow notes, "it is well known to students of high school algebra" that division by zero is not valid. Friedmann realized that this error invalidated Einstein's argument against the possibility of a dynamic universe, and indeed under the condition that the quantity in question vanishes, it is possible to satisfy the field equations with a dynamic model, i.e., with a model of the form given by the Robertson-Walker metric with R(t) variable. It's worth noting that Einstein's 1917 paper did not actually contain any alleged proof that the universe must be static, but it did suggest that a non-zero cosmological constant required a non-zero density of matter. Shortly after Einstein's paper appeared, de Sitter gave a counter-example (see Section 7.6), i.e., he described a model universe that had a non-zero l but zero matter density. However, unlike Einstein's model, it was not static. Einstein objected strenuously to de Sitter's model, because it showed that the field equations allowed inertia to exist in an empty universe, which Einstein viewed as "inertia relative to space", and he still harbored hopes that general relativity would fulfill Mach's idea that inertia should only be possible in relation to other masses. It was during the course of this debate that (presumably) Einstein advanced his "alleged proof" of the impossibility of dynamic models (with the errant division by zero?). However, before long Einstein withdrew his objection, realizing that his argument was flawed. Years later he recalled the sequence of events in a discussion with Gamow, and made the famous remark that it had been the biggest blunder of his life. This is usually interpreted to mean that he regretted ever considering a cosmological term (which seems to have been the case), but it could also be referring to his erroneous argument against the idea of a dynamic universe, resulting from his unfortunate "division by zero".

In any case, the Friedmann universes (with and without cosmological constant) became the "standard model" for cosmologies. If k = +1 the manifold represented by the Robertson-Walker metric is a finite spherical space, so it is called "closed". If k = 0 or -1 the metric is typically interpreted as representing an infinite space, so it is called "open". However, it's worth noting that this need not be the case, because the metric gives only local attributes of the manifold; it does not tell us the overall global topology. For example, we discuss in Section 7.4 a manifold that is everywhere locally flat, but that is closed cylindrically. This shows that when we identify "open" (infinite) and "closed" (finite) universes with the cases k = −1 and k = +1 respectively, we are actually assuming the "maximal topology" for the given metric in each case.

Based on the Robertson-Walker metric (3), we can compute the components of the Ricci tensor and scalar and substitute these along with the simple uniform stress-energy tensor into the field equations (1) to give the conditions on the scale function R = R(t):

where dots signify derivatives with respect to t. As expected, if R(t) is constant, these equations reduce to the ones that appeared in Einstein's original 1917 paper, whereas with variable R(t) we have a much wider range of possible solutions.

It may not be obvious that these two equations have a simultaneous solution, but notice that if we multiply the first condition through by R(t)3 and differentiate with respect to t, we get

The left-hand side is equal to times the left-hand side of the second condition, which equals zero, so the right hand side must also vanish, i.e., the derivative of (8p/3)GrR(t)3must equal zero. This implies that there is a constant C such that

With this stipulation, the two conditions are redundant, i.e., a solution of one is guaranteed to be a solution of the other. Substituting for (8p/3)Gr in the first condition and multiplying through by R(t)3, we arrive at the basic differential equation for the scale parameter of a Friedmann universe

Incidentally, if we multiply through by R(t), differentiate with respect to t, divide through by, and differentiate again, the constants k and C drop out, and we arrive at

With l = 0 this is identical to the gravitational separation equation (3) in Section 4.2, showing that the cosmological scale parameter R(t) is yet another example of a naturally occurring spatial separation that satisfies this differential equation. It follows that the admissible functions R(t) (with l = 0) are formally identical to the gravitational free-fall solutions described in Section 4.3. Solving equation (4) (with l = 0) for and switching to normalized coordinates T = t/C and X = R/C, we get

Accordingly as k equals −1, 0, or +1, integration of this equation gives

A plot of these three solutions is shown below.

In all three cases with l = 0, the expansion of the universe is slowing down, albeit only slightly for the case k = -1. However, if we allow a non-zero cosmological constant l, there is a much greater variety of possible solutions to Friedmann's equation (2), including solutions in which the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating exponentially. Based on the cosmic scale parameter R and its derivatives, the three observable parameters traditionally used to characterize a particular solution are

In terms of these parameters, the constants appearing in the Friedmann equation (4) can be expressed as

In principle if astronomers could determine the values of H, q, and s with enough precision, we could decide on empirical grounds the sign of k, and whether or not l is zero. Thus, assuming the maximal topologies (and the large-scale validity of general relativity), we could determine whether the universe is open or closed, and whether it will expand forever or eventually re-contract. Unfortunately, none of the parameters is known with enough precision to distinguish between these possibilities.

One source of uncertainty is in the estimates of the mass density r of the universe. Given the best current models of star masses, and the best optical counts of stars in galaxies, and the apparent density of galaxies, we estimate an overall mass density that is only a small fraction of what would be required to make k = 0. However, there are reasons to believe that much (perhaps most) of the matter in the universe is not luminous. (For example, the observed rotation of individual galaxies indicates that they ought to fly apart unless there is substantially more mass in them than is visible to us.) This has led physicists and astronomers to search for the "missing mass" in various forms.

Another source of uncertainty is in the values of R and its derivatives. For example, in its relatively brief history, Hubble's constant has undergone revisions of an order of magnitude, both upwards and downwards. In recent years the Hubble space telescope and several modern observatories on Earth seem to have found strong evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. If so, then it could be accounted for in the context of general relativity only by a non-zero cosmological constant l (on a related question, see Section 7.6), with the implication that the universe is infinite and will expand forever (at an accelerating rate).

Nevertheless, the idea of a closed finite universe is still of interest, partly because of the historical role it played in Einstein's thought, but also because it remains (arguably) the model most compatible with the spirit of general relativity. In an address to the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1921, Einstein said

I must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite universe. The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total effect of inertia of a body to action and reaction between it and the other bodies in the universe... From the general theory of relativity it can be deduced that this total reduction of inertia to reciprocal action between masses - as required by E. Mach, for example - is possible only if the universe is spatially finite. On many physicists and astronomers this argument makes no impression...

This is consistent with the approach taken in Einstein's 1917 paper. Shortly thereafter he presented (in "The Meaning of Relativity", 1922) the following three arguments against the conception of infinite space, and for the conception of a bounded, or closed, universe:

(1) From the standpoint of the theory of relativity, to postulate a closed universe is very much simpler than to postulate the corresponding boundary condition at infinity of the quasi-Euclidean structure of the universe.

(2) The idea that Mach expressed, that inertia depends on the mutual attraction of bodies, is contained, to a first approximation, in the equations of the theory of relativity; it follows from these equations that inertia depends, at least in part, upon mutual actions between masses. Thereby Mach's idea gains in probability, as it is an unsatisfactory assumption to make that inertia depends in part upon mutual actions, and in part upon an independent property of space. But this idea of Mach's corresponds only to a finite universe, bounded in space, and not to a quasi-Euclidean, infinite universe. From the standpoint of epistemology it is more satisfying to have the mechanical properties of space completely determined by matter, and this is the case only in a closed universe.

(3) An infinite universe is possible only if the mean density of matter in the universe vanishes. Although such an assumption is logically possible, it is less probable than the assumption of a finite mean density of matter in the universe.

Along these same lines, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler ("Gravitation") comment that general relativity "demands closure of the geometry in space as a boundary condition on the initial-value equations if they are to yield a well-determined and unique 4-geometry." Interestingly, when they quote Einstein's reasons in favor of a closed universe they omit the third without comment, although it reappears (with a caveat) in the subsequent "Inertia and Gravitation" of Ciufolini and Wheeler. As we've seen, Einstein was initially under the mistaken impression that the only cosmological solutions of the field equations are those with

where R is the radius of the universe, r is the mean density of matter, and k is the gravitational constant. This much is consistent with modern treatments, which agree that at any given epoch in a Friedmann universe with constant non-negative curvature the radius is inversely proportional to the square root of the mean density. On the basis of (5) Einstein continued

If the universe is quasi-Euclidean, and its radius of curvature therefore infinite, then r would vanish. But it is improbable that the mean density of matter in the universe is actually zero; this is our third argument against the assumption that the universe is quasi-Euclidean.

However, in the 2nd edition of "The Meaning of Relativity" (1945), he added an appendix, "essentially nothing but an exposition of Friedmann's idea", i.e., the idea that "one can reconcile an everywhere finite density of matter with the original form of the equations of gravity [without the cosmological term] if one admits the time variability of the metric distances...". In this appendix he acknowledged that in a dynamic model, as described above, it is perfectly possible to have an infinite universe with positive density of matter, provided that k = −1. It's clear that Einstein originally had not seriously considered the possibility of a universe with positive mass density but overall negative curvature. In the first edition, whenever he mentioned the possibility of an infinite universe he referred to the space as "quasi-Euclidean", which I take to mean "essentially flat". He regarded this open infinite space as just a limiting case of a closed spherical universe with infinite radius. He simply did not entertain the possibility of a hyperbolic (k = −1) universe. (It's interesting that Riemann, too, excluded spaces of negative curvature from his 1854 lecture, without justification.) His basic objection was evidently that a spacetime with negative curvature possesses an inherent structure independent of the matter it contains, and he was unable to conceive of any physical source of negative curvature. This typically entails "ad hoc" boundary conditions at infinity, precisely what's required in an open universe, which Einstein regarded as contrary to the spirit of relativity.

At the end of the appendix in the 2nd edition, Einstein conceded that it comes down to an empirical question. If (8p/3)Gr is greater than H2, then the universe is closed and spherical; otherwise it is open and flat or pseudospherical (hyperbolic). He also makes the interesting remark that although we might possibly prove the universe is spherical, "it is hardly imaginable that one could prove it to be pseudospherical". His reasoning is that in order to prove the universe is spherical, we need only identify enough matter so that (8p/3)Grexceeds H2, whereas if our current estimate of r is less than this threshold, it will always be possible that there is still more "missing matter" that we have not yet identified. At this stage Einstein was assuming a zero cosmological constant, so it may not have occurred to him that it might someday be possible to determine empirically that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Ironically, already in 1919 Einstein had written privately to Lorentz acknowledging the weakness of the idea that the universe must be closed.

My view that the state of the ether (i.e., the gmn’s) must be determined by the matter alone has nothing compelling about it. That is why one cannot argue for the closure of the world with as much certainty as I have done.

His use of the word “ether” for the gravitational/inertial field was in deference to Lorentz, but even aside from that, this is a remarkable statement, considering how strongly Einstein subsequently continued to promote the concept of a closed universe, based on the Machian idea that the metrical field “must be determined by the matter alone”. Even after he later disavowed “Mach’s principle”, he went on arguing in favor of a closed universe.

Ultimately, was there any merit in Einstein's skepticism toward the idea of an "open" universe? Even setting aside his third argument, the first two still carry some weight with some people, especially those who are sympathetic to Mach's ideas regarding the relational origin of inertia. In an open universe we must accept the fact that there are multiple, physically distinct, solutions compatible with a given distribution of matter and (non-gravitational) energy. In such a universe the "background" inertial field can in no way be attributed to the matter and energy content of the universe. From this standpoint, general relativity can never give an unambiguous answer to the twins paradox (for example), because the proper time integral over a given path from A to B depends on the inertial field, and in an open universe this field cannot be inferred from the distribution of mass-energy. It is determined primarily by whatever absolute boundary conditions we choose to impose, independent of the distribution of mass-energy. Einstein believed that such boundary conditions were inherently non-relativistic, because they require us to single out a specific frame of reference - essentially Newton's absolute space. (In later years a great deal of work has been done in attempting to develop boundary conditions "at infinity" that do not single out a particular frame. This is discussed further in Section 7.7.)

The only alternative (in an open universe) that Einstein could see in 1917 was for the metric to degenerate far from matter in such a way that inertia vanishes, i.e., we would require that the metric at infinity go to something like

Such a boundary condition would be the same with respect to any frame of reference, so it wouldn't single out any specific frame as the absolute inertial frame of the universe. Einstein pursued this approach for a long time, but finally abandoned it because it evidently implies that the outermost shell of stars must exist in a metric very different from ours, and as a consequence we should observe their spectral signatures to be significantly shifted. (At the time there was no evidence of any "cosmological shift" in the spectra of the most distant stars. We can only speculate how Einstein would have reacted to the discovery of quasars, the most distant objects known, which are in fact characterized by extreme redshifts and apparently extraordinary energies.)

The remaining option that Einstein considered for an open asymptotically flat universe is to require that, for a suitable choice of the system of reference, the metric must go to

at infinity. However, the imposition of this condition in a spherically symmetrical way (for example) singles out one particular frame of reference as the absolute inertial frame of the universe with no relational foundation. This, Einstein said, "is contrary to the spirit of the relativity principle", and it was the basis of his early view that general relativity is most compatible with a closed unbounded universe. The recent astronomical findings that seem to indicate an accelerating expansion have caused most scientists to abandon closed models, but there seems to be some lack of appreciation for the damage an open universe does to the epistemological strength of general relativity. As Einstein wrote in 1945, "the introduction of [the cosmological constant] constitutes a complication of the theory, which seriously reduces its logical simplicity".

Of course, in both an open and a closed universe there must be boundary and/or initial conditions, but the question is whether the distribution of mass-energy by itself is adequate to define the field, or whether independent boundary conditions are necessary to pin down the field. In a closed universe the "boundary conditions" can be more directly identified with the distribution of mass-energy, whereas in an open universe they are necessarily quite independent. Thus a closed universe can claim to satisfy Mach's principle at least to some degree, whereas an open universe definitely can't. The seriousness of this depends on how seriously we take Mach's principle. Since we can just as well regard a field as a palpable constituent of the universe, and since the metric of spacetime itself is a field in general relativity, it can be argued that Mach's dualistic view is no longer relevant. However, the second issue is whether even the specification of the distribution of mass-energy plusboundary conditions at infinity yields a unique solution. For Maxwell's equations (which are linear) it does, but for Einstein's equations (which are non-linear) it doesn't. This is perhaps what Misner, et al, are referring to when they comment that "Einstein's theory...demands closure of the geometry in space ... as a boundary condition on the initial value equations if they are to yield a well-determined (and, we now know, a unique) 4-geometry".

In view of this, one might argue that the (apparent) uniqueness of the metrical field supports the idea of a closed universe - at least within the context of general relativity. To put it more explicitly, if we believe the structure of the universe is governed by general relativity, and that the structure is determinate, then the universe must be closed. If the universe is not closed, then general relativity must be incomplete in the sense that there must be something other than general relativity determining which of the possible structures actually exists. Admittedly, completeness in this sense is a very ambitious goal for any theory, but it's interesting to recall the famous "EPR" paper in which Einstein criticized quantum mechanics on the grounds that it could not be a complete description of nature. (See Section 9.5.) He may well have had this on his mind when he pointed out how seriously the introduction of a cosmological constant undermines the logical simplicity of general relativity, which was always his criterion for evaluating the merit of any scientific theory.

We can see him wrestling with this issue, even in his 1917 paper, where he notes that some people (such as de Sitter) have argued that we have no need to consider boundary conditions at infinity, because we can simple specify the metric at the spatial limit of the domain under consideration, just as we arbitrarily (or empirically) specify the inertial frames when working in Newtonian mechanics. But this clearly reduces general relativity to a rather weak theory that must be augmented by other principles and/or considerable amounts of arbitrary information in order to yield determinate results. Not surprisingly, Einstein was unenthusiastic about this alternative. As he said, "such a complete resignation in this fundamental question is for me a difficult thing. I should not make up my mind to it until every effort to make headway toward a satisfactory view had proved to be in vain".

Return to Table of Contents

Reply

author Clinton Siegle

22 June 2016, 19:51

wild last paper was 1947.. not 1917... wave if time is null, speed is null, and distance is null- then what is a universe or multiuniverse space?

Grays say the diety is a mind - no religion

Reptiles use politics - no politics

Community is all there is for humanity to live by or cease to exist in 10,000 years. Can humanity survive? BriEXIT happened three days ago.. Now vote is happening this night.. Britian stayed in EU three days ago.. what will be tomorrow? per discussion read it matters not for at least 2800 AD -

Null triangle is more than 180 degrees - the room was new - the person asked - I answered how and the answer came..

Bread if you look at the top you can not see the loaf. Renard versus Bernard Grimm the difference is wild. 180 degrees null a triangle formula. Speed, distance, time are null...

The line above a triangle is not seen as 180 degrees. Above a loaf of bread there is no view of the universe within.

Changes today noticed - BriEXIT happened 3 days ago. Trees on walk leaves are dying. Winter is happening while I was looking forward to summer three days ago..

Changes not noticed broom colors did not change.

Person I checked with said only one thing changed for her. unsure how much I can believe - imaganation is wild at times.

Time - is fluid but the amount given a person stuck or something has to be thrown at the concept of a universe picture to win something big.

Speed - I have seen distance and speed differ by an amount greater than 5 minutes on a bus trip.

Distance I have seen blocks grow by a 1/3 and lose space by 2/3. Distance is not the same.

If 180 degrees is not a triangle - what makes up reality.

Reality one mind - or multiple minds. What are they trying to show me. Vengence is vague. Against coordination of hate is something not within me.

Power not interested. Influence not interested. Life but at what cost? If we are open to multiply universe what is the outcome?

Reptiles versus humanity? the time frame means less now but more in the long run.

Pretend gods what do they want? For what purpose? control... reality..

Community is needed. Government wants to tax something which destroys the very person or group being taxed while helping whom? The community is all that can survive while the government come to a power problem.

180 there is that.. I do not understand the open versus close universe. I would say a 180 greater would make more sense to be expanding and new stuff is created always versus everything has been created within a universe and there is nothing new?

What is or what if?

no way that what I am thinking - is all I am here for is a new story teller? Bookworms let me know if you are there?

Reply

author Clinton Siegle

23 June 2016, 17:48

William James investigated mystical experiences throughout his life, leading him to experiment with chloral hydrate (1870), amyl nitrite (1875), nitrous oxide (1882), and peyote(1896).[citation needed] James claimed that it was only when he was under the influence of nitrous oxide that he was able to understand Hegel.[31] He concluded that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others, they are certainly ideas to be considered, but can hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such. American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia classes him as one of several figures who "took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world

The issue of a parallel universe not being on drugs and not buying a ticket for the trip is when or what are we or I am here for to what purpose.

the whole idea of being moved from one experience to another would mean I should be learning something. Outside that a broom colors can change. That peoples personalities and certain aspects of their sexuality is changed wildly along with dogs sizes and colors. Along with location being changed. I thought the mountain moved. The mountain did not move only my location waking up did. If I was on drugs what purpose is this story for and to whom would I care to be with.

The more I travel the quieter I become. I realize silence is something more than golden.

Community versus government money. We the individuals need to take back out liberty to live for money runs out and the government seems willing to murder people for their own fait money.

Hard ballot with a record is the only way to vote.

An invisible thread connects those who are destined to meet, regardless of time, place, and circumstance. the thread may stretch or tangle. but it will never break There once was a dragon, which lived in a cave. Actually a shape sifter named Liz. She was a beautiful human and wonderful colored dragon. The problem of course was size and height of this pretty creature of divinity. You see she was only a bit over 13 inches and when a dragon is that small... Why sometimes a person is at fault calling a dragon a lizard you would know. As for her large cave it was really more of a hole in a treasure box where she kept her treasure. Now one knows that treasure of a dragon is gold. The idea being worth something. The problem of course is a small dragon gold coin and such were about as big as her hands. So she collected jewels diamonds and such. That was where Ender the pirate and crew came in. Being sold a book of maps at a used book store and being well rummed up by the local bar keep. Being told of a fierce dragon and gold hoard on the isle of "Dragon" Ender the pirate was off to swipe some gold from said pretty little dragon. Upon landing from the Black Skimmer Ender set the crew about cleaning and crewing the ship. While he scouted ahead to the dark large cave which was suppose to be at the middle of the isle. But to his surprise he discovered no cave only what looked like a very large lunch box treasure chest with a hole in it. That day Ender had to chuckle as he saw Liz the fierce dragon of Dragon isle come out of her “cave” She was a lizard he thought. Then she transformed into the measure lady that she was. Wow.. Ender thought of all the places she could sneak into and the wealth to be had. Formulating a new plan Ender went back to his ship to prepare it for a new member of Ender the pirates crew. He instructed his crew to defer to the dragon or lizard and always call her by her formal title dragonist. He then put together a nice snug room for her cave and had the bear prepare a nice turkey diner for her which was part of his plan. Upon the bears finishing touches of the turkey off Ender the pirate went to the Dragon cave' . He called out to the treasure chest lunch box Oh mighty dragon I have a meal for you'.. The dragon being a lady could smell something good and was curious not having many visitors do to the legend of the mighty dragon on Dragon isle. Liz the dragon came out of her cave. She saw what did she see. A mad hatter- no a pirate yes or a mad hatter dressed as a pirate. Liz was a bit taken back. She thought of him as a wild man so was curious as to his desire. Ender invited her to dine on a miniature table where he set the whole turkey and stuffing on. She saw this as a great deal and joined him for a conversational tale.

where is waldo the wandering earth.. hey great news for those that read. evidently blackholes are common in the galaxy now. not just the one that is sucking us up in the center. some how however even with them being common outside the one that is cuking us up in the center of the galaxy.. they have not been able to find one..

**14 May** ·

Shared with Public

https://blog.reedsy.com/.../contests/94/submissions/67338/

Dares? Sure, I can dare you. I take the dare almost every day since I awoke that day in 2016. Why? I expect like many people you are not from here. And if you are not from here and I am not from here. We have different stories to tell. Dare you tell me your story? I can tell you mine. I ain’t from here. That got me a trip to the shrink. Who stated I was living past lives. He wanted me to waste time with him. Scheduling me for one appointment after another. If you have read me, I dislike wasting time. So after the fourth appointment I proved to him he was dead. Kind of sad. But a truth. There were reason people did not dare me to do things in my reality. So you want to take a dare.. Fine, I dare you to take my test. And if you pass congratulations, you are from here. And if you do not pass? Well, we be traveling spirits to a dead past that died so many years ago that no one knows or. ANd here is the kicker for me. In a closed time curved loop, this reality just happened a moment ago to catch me to write this absurd story to you.

What color is the sun? White, Yellow, Green, Blue?

How close is earth to the center of the galaxy?

How old is the earth?

How old is the universe?

Big Bang song is it 13 or 14 billion years or million years or thousand years?

Jiff or Jiffy Peanut Butter?

Captain Crunch or Capt’n Crunch?

Abe Lincoln was a senator or just representative?

Japan is off the coast of China or Korea?

JC Penny or JC Penney is the name of the story?

Sketcher or Sketcher the brand of shoe?

Vote on the second Tuesday of November or the First Monday of November?

How many states are in the United States?

Russia has already told US that if attacked they will use nuclear weapons as a defense strategy.

North Korea was given two EMP satellites from Russia in the 1990s that hang over Atlanta, Georgia, and California.

Biden was arrested for trying to visit Mandela.

Trump said lets vote day after Thanksgiving.

Obama says there are 58 states in the United States.

Bush Jr says that Mandela was killed by Saddam.

And is it Sadam, or Saddam? Where was he captured? Was he hung or firing squad and what prediction did he state to the president when he was about to die. I know. Do you?

Dares are something for me. Dare I tell you more? That your world died a long time ago? How could I prove that to my shrink? Oh, I can listen and learn. And? Most dead people want to get something off their chest and they talk and talk and talk. And? Thus in one reality they will tell you one thing and in another reality that is their secret and in a third reality not a big deal to go into that secret and in a fourth reality?

You decide to tell the shrink his secret and diagnosis him and he does not like that. Not many people do. To be toyed with? Not really toying. Just annoyed that no one dares to talk with me these days about their personal lives. Their stories. Why? The first time a story is told is something new. A second time something changes you wonder why and third time with detailed questioning you can find out that the dare you took in the first place was something you either should or should not have done.

The dares of late?

Read what is in your vaccines.

Several of the elements I knew were outlawed in my reality, and here they put them.

Why? I suppose Revelation 6 plague and death would be my speculation.

The same with the coming wars with China, Russia, Turkey. All pre-planned in an attempt to change reality of these worlds. Why?

Who knows man’s reasoning for wanting to escape fate. Personally was not much of a pirate or rebel. I was more into thinking and wondering why fate was fickle. And now? I realize that fate is real and that to escape fate is not the best desire in my good nature of surviving. what do I mean? I have heard of the stories where and what happens when they nuked Hawaii in December 2017 plus or minus moments or billions of years ago in a closed time curved looped.

Dares? Did I take dares in my reality? Not at all. You see in my reality fate is real. What does that mean? Chaos or chance is not fickle or real. Meaning? Everything I did or do was written down and someone is reading it to me and I or you are doing exactly what we are told to do. So daring you to do something is like pre-arranged story telling and? Nothing is new under the sun. Dare me to answer how did they do this?

Simple. In my reality the galaxy spun much faster than here. How much faster one cycle of the galaxy was 1,000 years and on the outside of the galaxy it was much more faster. Here? They say 230 to 250 million years earth travels around the black hole. And in my reality?

That is the funny part of my galaxy was much larger 377,000 light years and? We had theories of black holes because we could make them in labs. However, in all the telescopes and all the math equations we had there not one single black hole was discovered. Why? Probably because we were going to hit the galaxy sooner by billions of years and they meaning black holes had dissipated.

Dare I go on? How about you comment below your test scores and tell me are you from here or not? Dare I tell you of the worlds I have seen or stories I know? How about we exchange one for one. After a while you might find out something new. I dare you.

Shared with Your friends

August 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM ·

so there i was..

watching a dream of the past of the present and all things accordingly-

to know all in a moment and then to loss it.

the thoughts teh dreams the idea and ideals..

what is truth

what is the meaning of life

is it to live for the fullest amount you can without regret..

or is it to change history and time to make it the most and best time of the world

August 6 2020

The awkwardness of 2010. Did I capture a reset point in time? My memories make me wonder at times. I know what I heard in 2017. I know where I heading. The difference? Date in a closed time curved loop reality means this is not the true 2012 either. September 10 2020 the end o 2012 or? Which worlds calendar is right these days. Ethiopian star and sun charts? Or the mystery calendar? I thrending towards the mystery calendar. Why? Time wise. I have seen the rapture. I have seen the twinkling in my eye. I have seen one left and one staying. That it is all man made makes me leery about the whole concept of good and evil. That the wifi is turnng my eyes sky blue with cataracts is awkward for me. I should have been able to out think 6 wifi towers in yet they were not here and then what ever reality I am poof they exist and the humming is there always there. I wonder about reality. When did I lose reality? 2010? 1983, 1978, 1974, 1976. Why 2010 seems like my post in 2010 indicated I remembered something. I know in 2013, my dreams seemed reality or real so maybe I got kidnapped to audit some other realities programs. Sucks to be the person to com in say you program is broke. stealing your resources for. what ever project .. seems odd. Who knows..

https://www.facebook.com/clint.flashman/posts/10209525739692076

August 6, 2017 at 7:02 PM ·

The awkwardness of being within a gravity well being sucked into the black hole. My world still has not seen the black hole at the center of the galaxy found on this world in 2013. Meaning we are on a disk or flat plane and cannot see through the billions of stars meaning this worlds stars being white are the newest thus meaning the first shall be last and last shall be first or how can the newest stars last longest and the oldest stars in my homeworld fall first. That I am not sure. However this is something to think about. Curvature of the universe means we are collapsing now instead of expanding which is oddity of being laughed at all through high school telling folks that there is more than 180 degrees in a triangle. curvature dreams make for the oddity of life. What dreams seem truth. August 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM ·

Prior to being kidnapped I had been trying to be a writer. i shalt try again. my mind hurts thought for the first two hours. it is like getting off the tilted world having done it 30 times on a bet you can not get your money off those wrist bands clint you would have to ride each ride 3 times.. yes or the tilted world 30 times.. okay a footlong hotdog nevertheless wouldnt it be cheaper just to buy your own hotdog.. where would be the fun in doing that. come on no lines at the tilted world.. August 6, 2017 at 4:02 PM ·

The awkwardness of being within a gravity well being sucked into the black hole. My world still has not seen the black hole at the center of the galaxy found on this world in 2013. Meaning we are on a disk or flat plane and cannot see through the billions of stars meaning this worlds stars being white are the newest thus meaning the first shall be last and last shall be first or how can the newest stars last longest and the oldest stars in my homeworld fall first. That I am not sure. However this is something to think about. Curvature of the universe means we are collapsing now instead of expanding which is oddity of being laughed at all through high school telling folks that there is more than 180 degrees in a triangle. curvature dreams make for the oddity of life. What dreams seem truth. August 6, 2017 at 4:24 PM ·

Today’s community parade was wonderful. The whole community of Alto Objeres turned out to celebrate their freedom from Spain. Sunday a day of celebration. Kindergarteners wearing period uniforms, ladies as young as six wearing nursing uniforms. Each of the three schools with a drum section that played very well. The whole community was out on a Sunday celebrating a day of independence from Spain. It was not just a token here is a band, a float, and three groups of Shriners. The Lions club, the taxi drivers, the schools, the whole community turned out. There was grandstand and people actually clapping for each different group as presented, and their presentation which ranged from walking by to musical numbers to karate demonstrations.

The celebration of Bolivar’s defeat of the Spanish brought strong emotions to the older people watching their grandchildren wearing military uniforms. The generation of parents were excited to film, watch, clap and cheer on the walkers in the shade. The performers drum rolled and car music of patriotic music filled the air.

This is community this is heartfelt belief that together that they are stronger than that of the past. The coming together of people to enjoy a moment of time to speak of a past that is no longer and to show a strong sense of community that was what I saw today in La Paz, Bolivia sector A Alto Objeres.

Clinton Siegle

August 6, 2017 at 1:33 PM ·

Prior to being kidnapped I had been trying to be a writer. i shalt try again. my mind hurts thought for the first two hours. it is like getting off the tilted world having done it 30 times on a bet you can not get your money off those wrist bands clint you would have to ride each ride 3 times.. yes or the tilted world 30 times.. okay a footlong hotdog nevertheless wouldnt it be cheaper just to buy your own hotdog.. where would be the fun in doing that. come on no lines at the tilted world.. August 6, 2017 at 4:02 PM ·

The awkwardness of being within a gravity well being sucked into the black hole. My world still has not seen the black hole at the center of the galaxy found on this world in 2013. Meaning we are on a disk or flat plane and cannot see through the billions of stars meaning this worlds stars being white are the newest thus meaning the first shall be last and last shall be first or how can the newest stars last longest and the oldest stars in my homeworld fall first. That I am not sure. However this is something to think about. Curvature of the universe means we are collapsing now instead of expanding which is oddity of being laughed at all through high school telling folks that there is more than 180 degrees in a triangle. curvature dreams make for the oddity of life. What dreams seem truth. August 6, 2017 at 4:23 PM ·

Is the world flat

North is northward, south is not to be seen. What if the earth is truly flat. What are the edges of our reality today? Due to east to eastward we can fly and see a circular world. However, what if we are on a plate and eastward to east is the same as west to west. At the same time, the edges are the south pole. The directions of the earth are spinning nowadays. Are we really going 16,000 miles an hour around a giant ball called the sun? Could we all be in purgatory, and our life has yet to be done? I remember a yellow sun. I see a white sun today. What is right, am I wrong? Let us ask some interesting questions. Venus pictures of a satellite burning up via Russia. Are you sure you know what is up or down? Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, or is it Mercury, Mars, Earth, Venus that is my question for toAugust 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM ·

This story is a story I heard one late night. The lady was a serial abortionist slash witch with some demons mentally conditioned from prolong drugs of this or that type. Here claims at times made me weird out. That night she was talking about her dreams of the volcanoes exploding around the world and how little boxes from strange aliens werer holding the world together. Humor then she went silent and on skype screamed. Back on line she claimed a demon she kept in the basement had broken through her chain and she had went down stairs and mentally beaten the demon with a dryign pan she kept there. The weird world as known by a person I thought I knew well. but who really knows anyone now a days.day. Look at the accompanying photo who is right.

When you realize the government that supposedly put a man on the moon. Lost the position of the earth in space.. That awkward moment in time.. https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1267172552548528128?focusedCommentUrn=urn:comment:1267172552548528128:1297558295699001358:0:0:1297566528647991298 Seems odd. But what is the real distance to the center of the galaxy? Is it 1985 reference of 27,700 light years? Or 1990 reference of 30,000 light years? Or 2002 reference to 25,000 light years? It is only a small subset change they cry. 2300 light years?? Please folks - one light year - equates to 6,000,000,000,000 miles.. and 2,000 of would mean 12,000,000,000,000,000 (For most space objects, we use light-years to describe their distance. A light-year is the distance light travels in one Earth year. One light-year is about 6 trillion miles (9 trillion km). That is a 6 with 12 zeros behind it! https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/light-year/en/) So for us to move from 30,000 to 27000 to 25000 light years away from the center of the galaxy would mean we traveled back in time.. What? Well in out life time we should move a total of 0.2 light years in an average 66 years.. and moving 2000 to 3000 to 5000 light years means we moved back in time..