Is Pi (π) a number or a concept; is zero a number or an operator?

It is a concept rather than a number. It is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The most basically used value for basic calculations is 22/7. This in turn goes as 3.142857142857… and so on until any number of digits you want to calculate. But it is not actually 22/7. So the exact number varies depending on which version of the fraction you are using as your reference. I am not going to go deep into the calculating of pi here. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi for a basic understanding of the history of pi.

If you wanted to find out a factor using some formula which needs the same factor to be known, then it will not work; never. Squaring the circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle ) was proven impossible because of the values and characteristics found for pi.

Now, squaring the circle cannot be attempted without having a way of calculating the area of a circle. Calculating the area of a circle requires pi by all means. If you are using pi to calculate the area of the circle and are trying to prove pi, then it is not going to work. Squaring the circle is basically the challenge to understanding the relationship of the diameter of a circle to its circumference; nothing else.

Unless you come up with a solution to devising the area of a circle without having to use pi, you are not going to be able to prove or disprove anything about squaring the circle; and therefore to understanding the relationship. Is there a way to calculate the area of a circle without having to use pi? As far as I know; No!

Let me take you to another angle where it is not Newtonian Physics nor is Einstenian Science; this is new. What if a circle wasn’t a circle at all? What if a circle was actually not a shape but an optical illusion? Here is why. For something to exist in space, that thing or shape has to align with the least units of space. Since space is 3D, the least units of space also should be 3D. Any other 3D shapes than cubes cannot fill in the space without gaps. The basic units of space are cubes; not spheres. Spheres and circles and anything with a curve do not exist. We only imagined and seen them because of our very least of comprehensive ability.

Every tiniest part of space should be filled with the least units of space and you give any other shape for the basic units of space and there will be gaps in volume where you wouldn’t have any idea of what filled it in. Since it is space, filling in must be the basic units of space.

It is not impossible. Until we developed scanning electron microscopes, how much uneven the perfect of surfaces were. Consider something that is completely flat; is it really so? At the end the material is made up of atoms and molecules which do not have a flat surface. So nothing in spite of however perfectly flat looking it is, is not flat; not at all.

It is in the same way, nothing is curved in this universe. Nothing can be. Everything is comprised of straight edged basic building units. It is the appearance even to the electron microscope which is not capable of looking beyond a certain limit that makes things looked curved. You can simply see some optical illusions which show you straight lines into curved ones.

In the case of pi, circles and curves, our problem is the conceptual illusion that there are things that are curved. You can have a look at the images to see actually how a circle as we say it would exist in the very least scales of space.

The actual circumference of a circle will be the addition of the sides of the square shaped units of space that are at the edge of the circular arrangement. We have to calculate pi, and we have to do calculations and we have to apply the area of a circle in very many applications. So we have to have some value. If we are looking for an absolute value, then it is not pi. It is something else. Is there are relationship between a curvature and a straight line? Yes, all curvatures are made up of straight lines. We have to start thinking from this direction to obtain the new constant. It is not pi. If we start with any unit of linear spatial measurement like 1mm, then we can start calculating the number of squares that would be needed to fill in the circle without poking out of the circle. Then we can calculate how many squares would be needed to fill in a circle with poking the circle. These two figures will help to obtain a ratio between the numbers of squares needed to fill in a circle.

Now, we have to start from 1unit sided square and 1 unit diametered circle. Then increase the diameter of the circle to 2, 3, 4 and more units. Fill in squares with the same 1unit sides. This will result in obtaining a ratio for the circle and the square. If we tried to identify the relationship with the curvature, it will never work because there is no actual curvature. We are hypothesizing something that is not there. So all the results we would get would also be hypotheses and not actual.

If we forget pi and look at the challenge of squaring the circle, would it be possible? Yes. Will a circle have an absolute area? Yes. All the calculations we do now; be it at NASA or in quantum mechanics labs, calculate the area of a circle with lack of accuracy. The calculations are very much accurate to the point where the result is not absolute; but the circle has an absolute area. Why am telling that everyone is calculating the circle to a wrong answer? Because all the calculations involve pi and pi has not yet been calculated accurately. I know there have been values found exact to over 12 trillion digits, we still don’t know if that was the value.

Here is how I attempted squaring the circle in 2011.

We cannot compare or find the ratio of two values where one value is absolute and the other is approximate. The area of a square is always absolutely calculated and the calculated area of a circle is never absolute. Since there is no circle, pi is a conceptual constant. It is not real.

I know I am not a mathematician and all the experts in mathematics are going to be mad at me if they even read these things; but I am sorry. To me, my case proves right.

You can say that using pi up to a 40 digit accurate value is more than enough for even sophisticated calculations; I do not agree. That is because our equipments to measure the results in experiments are having curvatures and are calibrated, calculated and devised using pi. If you used pi to set the accuracy of equipment, then all the results that are obtained from that equipment are not absolute. In the essence of mathematics, when a result is not absolute, it is WRONG!

Simple examples could be the lenses used in devices that operate with light. You are calculating the focus length and some other important characteristics and settings of the equipments with the aid of pi. If your value for pi had only a trillionth of difference with the actual factor, then your results have the tendency to have faults by the same one trillionth of any results. If you were calculating the distance through which the light was travelling, and found that it was a trillion light years away, then it could be one light year less or more. This is only if the value of pi was a trillionth times deviating. We have much bigger proportions of deviations of pi. If we applied these results to the smallest of scales like measuring the wavelengths of radiations or measuring the number of particles within a certain area, and if we used pi anywhere there, then the results would be deceiving.

We are running; yes. We have satellites and we have quantum computers; yes. This is still at Einstein’s level of physics. We are only applying the same concepts in different manners. So we are getting different combinations. If we are to step up to the next level of science, then we will have to move forward where, all existing science will be an example of the probability of finding a wrong answer.

There is another issue is mathematics that I had a look at. The value of zero; what is the value of zero? Well, to me zero should not be considered as a number at all. It is not a number. It is an operator. Like a decimal point, or a thousands separator comma; the symbol 0 is an operator. It is merely a multiplication by 10.

So what about the answer to an equation where 1-1=? Well, it is not zero. Zero is not a number. The concept is right, but the way it is presented and has been researched and trialed doesn’t look right to me. We need to put in another symbol to indicate the value of 1-1=() or 2-2=(). This will get us towards a proper understanding of the value of maximum infinity and minimum infinity. 

We are also using infinity in many equations. Since infinity does not have a value and we round it up to a certain value, the results are not absolute. They are accurate enough for the existing science but are not good enough for the science tomorrow. Discarding zero (0) as a number will draft the way towards understanding infinity as we call it. In fact, there cannot be infinity too.

Let me get it in another post.

Thought is a dimension; a dimension above time!

Bubbles form everything else except for time. What is time made up of? Time should be made up of something else that is of another dimension higher. What is that thing that is naturally above time; that is naturally capable of moving up, down and sideways in time? I call it the thought dimension. I cannot find a name for that so that I call it the thought dimension. It is also our thoughts that are of the same dimension of these elements that I am describing here in this post.

Now don’t get confused. Thoughts are not made up of any more basic units; or I cannot think of a dimension which composes the thought dimension because I am limited to that dimension. I can think about thoughts but cannot think beyond it. Apparently, humans are limited to the thought dimensions. We might invent time machines and travel to the past, we might invent spaceship that can warp through the space, we might invent a way of escaping this universe, we might invent a way of immortality, we might invent anything else that we haven’t even thought before; but we will never be able to think, calculate or comprehend beyond this dimension that I am talking about. Or at least, that is what I think.

Just forget about the word “thought” as you know it and please follow me into the explanation that I am trying to give. Thoughts are exactly like bubbles. They do exist in the smallest scales of space, time, mass and anything else. They also do exist in the largest scales. Unlike all other dimensional building blocks, thoughts do not have a critical number of anything else to form a thought dimension. They exist and they can concentrate and dilute in any dimensions. They can manipulate anything. Even if you agree to what I am stating, how could they relate to the time dimension and others?

Thoughts create the basic building blocks of time. How do I call the BBBs of time? Let me call them the bbbT. For an understanding, let’s imagine the 3d world as 2d events in a comic book page. Each page progresses as the event changes. Then the bbbT is a page of that book. This is when we consider a linear time. If we consider time as a 3D grid as I have explained before, then it is not a book full of pages.

This is the most difficult part to explain. If I have to explain the time element as having 3D possibilities, then each unit of time has six different possibilities of events; like the six different faces of a cube. If you consider time as a matrix made up of cubic bbbTs, then there are six different event possibilities at each unit of time, but only one is real. There can be only one result at any given observation but there are six different possibilities.

This is getting even harder but bear with me. We measure time in seconds; that is the linear time. if we knew the matrix of time and had a unit to that time, then we can measure the matrix time (There you go; I finally found a term to describe the original time dimension; the “Matrix Time”). In the matrix time, the probabilities of an event taking place are 1 in six. When you add another unit of time, then the probabilities of another event taking place given the former event in the first unit are six times twenty six. There will be twenty six adjacent cubes of time to the first unit of time and all of them will have six different faces. At the next unit, there will be 125-27 = 98 different possibilities of events. This won’t make sense to us because I am talking about the matrix time. In linear time, the possibilities are only one at the first unit, then another one at the second unit and then another one at the third unit.

If we consider just three most basic units of time and the probability of an event taking place at the third unit of time for a given first event at the first unit of time is only 1 in 3 at linear time but is 1 in 98 for matrix time. Even if we considered the zero or positive directions of the matrix times to collaborate with the linear time, then there would be 49 possibilities in matrix time where there will be only 3 possibilities in linear time. If you find it difficult to understand, then I am sorry. For the time being, I don’t know a better way to explain it.

What is for sure is that time is not linear, and there is no one direction for time and therefore it is the matrix time that we have to enter into our calculation; but not yet; not in the existing science because everything will fall apart.

This is beyond quantum physics. At least we should have passed the quantum level of science to apply these rules, laws and calculations because all existing calculations, laws and rules will either be ignored or changed greatly after the proving of the issues in the series of postings.

Let me get to the basics again.

To get to the bbbT, we will have to calculate, observe and measure the least magnitude of time that is needed for an event to take place. How do we do that? Well, since we don’t know that we have to look for evidences in the known science. And even through this method, we can only finalize the least unit of the linear time. Luckily the least unit of linear time will have a relationship between the least units of the matrix time.

Okay, how to calculate the least unit of time? Think about the least unit of space. The time needed for an object of a least unit of space to move to the adjacent least unit of space will be the least unit of time. There comes another problem. You don’t know if that object stayed for while in the same space and then moved to the next unit of space.

Obviously photons and the least units of the mass share the least unit of space. The fastest are the photons. If they move in a linear direction, then they should move to the next unit of mass in the least unit of time; or they should move in the maximum speed possible. Consider having a picture and a motion picture. If you took a screenshot of a motion picture and had two different images, then you have received two different sets of light combinations. If you took two different sets of screenshots and had the same picture, then the light combinations were the same.

Now consider the photons moving to the next space. If they did not move, then they are still. That is, the time is still the same unit. Photons cannot stay still; they are essentially electromagnetic radiation and in vacuum, they move at speeds of light. Please don’t confront me about the slowing down of photons in mediums and the freezing of light under special conditions; that is different. If needed, I will get to that too but not now.

So, the least unit of time will be theoretically the least unit of space divided by the speed of light. That will be the least unit of time. If we found the least unit of time, then it will be the least unit of linear time. It is not all, but is sufficient to start with to exploring the thought dimension.

There has to be a least unit of thought, but I am not intelligent enough at this point to hypothesize and understand the properties of the least unit of thought. For sure, these units of thoughts should combine together to form the basic building blocks or the least units of time. The thought units should also form the bubbles which in turn give the way for other dimensional elements.

Thoughts when condensed can form time, or bubbles depending on their arrangement. I don’t know how and I am not capable enough to comprehend that yet. Since I said that thoughts can form time and bubbles, I have to propose and experiment to prove this.

Here is the experiment. If you can ask a large number of people to think of the same thing to happen; wish for something to happen, then it will happen. It doesn’t sound very scientific. Let’s be specific. Since thoughts are the basic building blocks of all comprehensible dimensions in the universe, they could produce literally anything anywhere and at any times.

We have social media now. We can arrange a few million people to think about the same thing at the same time. Arrange a room with cameras that telecast live. Put up a light bulb in the center of the room and lit it up with a battery power. Make the battery and the wires connecting to it completely visible to the cameras. Obviously, the light should flash and continue to light up the room. Choose a light bulb that is of much bigger capacity than the battery. Like; choose a bulb with 24 volts where the battery is only 12 volts. So the brightness of the bulb will be very low. Now ask the millions of volunteers who agree for this experiment to wish that the bulb burns with maximum brightness. If they are all given the message in around the same time and if they all started thinking the same thing in around the same time, then their thoughts would interact with the room and will create enough energy to brighten up the light bulb. The live telecast would help people to look at the bulb and focus their thoughts on it plus, it will help avoid skepticism on the result of the experiment.

If this doesn’t sound scientific, then conduct a controlled experiment where you don’t ask people to think about it. The problem is that you have to conduct the controlled experiment before doing the actual experiment because even after you have seen the results, people will be often thinking about the same light bulb that responded to their thoughts. To your surprise, you will see the light bulb flashing in brightness even hours after the experiment because people would randomly remember about that bulb and that thought will have impact on it.

This is not something to laugh at; this is a proposed experiment which could be conducted, measured and compared with a controlled experiment.

I don’t know how much thought you need to produce to make a light bulb burn or to create an iPhone out of thin air, but I know for sure that thoughts can produce time, energy and material. Materializing and dematerializing is possible with just thoughts.

All these religious and cultic traditions that have meditations, prayers and gatherings together is a means of focusing thoughts. There are two ways of accomplishing something through your thoughts. Concentrate your own thoughts for a long time period and very much focused, then it becomes the reality. The second method is to concentrate and focus the thoughts of many people into something and the results will be instantaneous.

There are stories in Hindu literature where kings and princes would meditate to certain Gods to attain certain special weapons for years. They would sit in the same place without having food or water. This by all means looks very legitimate and real and completely scientific to me that if you sit down in a place and start wishing that you need a specific sword, then your thoughts will form the sword. If you have imagined and pictured the sword to be floating in the air for you to take it from there, then it will be floating in the air.

Thoughts can manipulate time as well, but we are only experiencing linear time and thoughts are not limited to linear time. This fact might limit our understanding and experimental results towards the relationship between thought and time.

If you remember where I said “”the word is capable of forming, manipulating and deforming anything, anywhere at any times” you can understand why. Sound or resonance is not a form of energy. Everything resonates inside. Thoughts are resonations themselves. It is not like how many cycles per second. Resonations can be explained only with time. Thoughts don’t need time to exist therefore the resonations of thoughts are incomprehensible for us at this point of time. There is a limit for everything; even to infinity. There is a limit for the human understanding. There definitely is a limit for my understanding. The formation of the universe is so far comprehensible to me as what I have explained.

I have attempted to state the making and existence of most dimensions that we know. I think these explanations can answer most questions. Still, there are a few things that stay apart. A complete theory of everything should explain everything.

So, in my next posts, I will attend some biological, mathematical and physics related puzzles. Spiritual concerns, happenings and mysteries could be explained too. Let me get into those one after the other.

Until then, try to understand. If you don’t understand something, it does not mean that something is not there. And it is not really necessary for anyone to understand something that is there.

If you remember the beginning of this series of posts, I said, there was nothing at the beginning of the big bang. It was nothing that was the singularity. That nothing or singularity is the thought dimension. I could not tell it to you then because you wouldn’t either understand or agree. By all means, if you are capable of producing a thought that is so powerful, then you can create a universe as well.

That tells me that there necessarily doesn’t have to be one single universe. Are there other universes? I don’t know. Can there be? Yes. It is more than a possibility to me. I think there are other universes to which we do not have access to. I don’t know to explain the link or gap between universes that could exist at this point. All what I know is that scientifically, space, time, energy and mass could be formed with just thoughts. If that is true, then entire universes could be formed if there were enough thoughts.

Over to you until the next post - Q

The building blocks of the building blocks

As all science confirms, the photons are the basic building blocks of energy. What are photons made up of? Could there be building blocks that make up photons? I think so. Getting beneath photons, the physical dimensions are useless to conceive the ideas. Yet, to explain the dimensions beyond the known and experienced dimensions, we have to take examples from the known dimensions.

Now, the fields such as gravitational and magnetic fields should have basic building blocks as well. The basic building blocks of the fields can be strings, as explained by the string theory. They can be as small as a basic unit of space or as big as the universe. The strings in turn when their properties alternate, can create the different fields. So how about the strings? Rather than pertaining the strings are two dimensional strings, it is more logical to consider them as bubbles. Rather than having a line, these are surfaces. If you consider a soap bubble then you can understand what I am trying to say.

As I said before, I am not going to confront with or conform to any existing theories or laws. Merely, I am using those as a way of explaining what I think. Now to the bubbles; they are entities of another dimension that makeup the lower dimensions. These bubbles as I refer to them are not spatial, temporal or energetic in nature. I don’t know to name their dimension but their dimension is just above the spatial, temporal or energetic dimensions.

If you consider soap bubbles, then they are very fragile. If consider bubbles made up of oil instead of water, then they will be more flexible and less fragile. Now consider the same bubbles with more flexibility; more flexible than anything we know. Also these bubbles are self transparent. That is a term that I am using in trying to explain their properties.

These bubbles could cross their own surfaces (so to speak but they are not really surfaces as they are not spatial objects) to for various shapes. A bubble can be as small as the smallest unit of space and it could expand to the size of the universe; or in other words, a bubble could exist in the entire universe at the same time; everywhere at once.

These bubbles should be the building blocks of fields. These bubbles also should be the basic building blocks of photons. It gets nearly impossible to test something that is out of our comprehensive dimensions. There is one hope. If we can propose the effects of the extra dimensions into the comprehensive dimensions, then we can test for the effects in the comprehensive dimensions.

Now, the bubbles as I said, could take any shape (though they are not spatial; we have to imagine them in some way) by folding onto their surfaces. They can form strings, flat formations like circles and triangles or 3D (not to be confused as spatial dimensions; this is to explain the properties of the bubbles) formations like cubes and spheres.

The bubbles are also transparent to each other until a certain number of bubbles share the same spatial dimension. If the number of bubbles exceeds the critical number within a given one least unit of space, they turn into photons. If this is right, then an excessive field of gravity or magnetism should produce photons.

Like I proposed to test the formation of mass from energy, I can propose an experiment to test if this is true. The easiest field that we could create in gigantic proportions is the magnetic field. If we could bring two magnets together, then their fields will interact and create a different resultant magnetic field. Since these are fields, you cannot fire them from different angles to meet at the center. What we can do is place negative points of magnets towards the center and makes a magnetic pulse to occur in the center.

The best way to handle our experiment is to have electromagnets so that we can raise and drop the strength of the field. If you consider two bar magnets put closer facing the similar poles, then they will push each other. If you placed them in just one tenth of a millimeter and started to increase their magnetic strength, then they will be pushing each other stronger than earlier. Now, if we placed some twenty bar magnets in a circular arrangement and had all the north ends towards the center of the circle, then there will be resultant push in the center.

If we had constructed an arrangement where there is enough magnetic strength in the middle to push harder so that the spot at the center of the circle faces maximum magnetic field that could exist, then the result should be energy. There should be energy forming out of the center of the magnetic ring. Since the first formations will be single photons with the lowest energy quanta, it would more probably heat waves or infrared radiation of very lower energy.

How do we know the maximum strength of a magnetic field that could exist before turning into energy? I can suggest a way. If you take the amount of energy needed to create a magnetic field with a particular strength, then you can calculate how much energy is needed to produce what strength of magnetic field.

The problem is, that the magnetic field is not a spot measurement. It is a vector. You have to get it into a numerical value without directions. To do that; we will have to take a volume of space and add the magnetic strength of imaginary spheres in the volume. Let me explain further.

You have to first define a volume of space. Per say, I meter from the center of the magnet in all directions. Then you have to define imaginary spherical units of the field. Per say, a sphere of 1 millimeter in diameter; this will give you a countable number of spheres within the given volume. It is difficult but you can devise a formula to add up all the numerical values of all the spheres in the given volume. Ignore the directions and add them up to get a scalar result. This will give a relationship between the electricity used to produce the magnetic field and the magnitude of the magnetic field itself.

The relationship should be linear. Once this is known, you can then apply values to that devised formula to see which amount of electricity would produce the outermost imaginary spheres to have zero value of the magnetic field. Then you will have to calculate the energy needed to produce zero value at the second innermost spheres in the magnetic field. You can devise a formula that will give you the result to produce equally strong adjacent layer of spheres from the middle. There will never be an equal value. You will end up with a difference of infinitively smaller value between the first layer of spheres and the second layer of spheres. It is at this point you can take the magnetic strength at the center as the maximum exist-able magnetic strength.

Since there is no such equation, theory or law yet, we unfortunately have to rely on this hypothesis and carry on the experiment to know the answers. When you calculate the maximum exist-able magnetic field strength, it would not be accurate but will be very closer. It is like calculating and producing an exact value for Pi. There is not exact value yet, but the value gets more and more accurate as we calculate further. By the way, Pi cannot be an infinite value; I will get to that later.

Once we have calculated and appropriate value for the maximum exist-able magnetic strength, we can use that value to produce a greater resultant magnetic field in the experiment proposed above. Since the first emergence would be lower energy waves, it is very logical to keep the experiment at absolute zero and in a vacuum status to avoid the absorption of heat by the air molecules at the center of the circle.

If we reversed the direction of the magnetic fields and had all same poles pointing towards the center, then there will be a maximum pull by the magnets. When we apply the maximum strength, the spot at the center of the circle will experience the same effect but in an opposite manner. This time, energy should be absorbed from the energy has to be released from somewhere. If you place a radiation material at the center, you can notice it irradiating. If you place a vacuum at the center then you will see that energy is being absorbed from the environment into the center. You can check it by measuring the density of daylight in that particular space; it will get lower and lower as energy will be absorbed by the particles at the center.

It all sounds fictitious or even hilarious until someone tries these experiments. I am not just stating something phenomenal, I am also giving experiments to conduct and check the results. I cannot conduct them by myself for two reasons. One is that I don’t have the facilities to conduct experiments at that level. The second reason is that I am not educated to handling that level of equipments. I don’t even hold a B.Sc; trust me.

So, these bubbles are the basic building blocks of the fields. The bubbles are also the basic building blocks of photons but the fields are not the basic building blocks of photons. It is exactly like how photons are the basic building blocks of energy and they are also the basic building blocks of the least unit of mass which in turn builds up mass.

The string theory which is now M theory which I am no expert at might be referring to these issues; I don’t know. To me, strings are not the candidates for being the basic of everything. It should be bubbles that make up even the strings. In other words, strings are merely a two dimensional (though the strings are demonstrated as one dimensional entities) state of the bubbles where the bubbles can actually have three dimensional existences.

I have come so far trying to explaining a common reason to make up the fields, energy, mass and space but still I could not explain the nature of time and I haven’t proposed any way to interact time with these other dimensions. If time is to interact with all of these other dimensions, then there has to be an even further state of dimensions where time has a common factor with all the other dimensions.

I will relate time to the other dimensions, and the basic building blocks of time and the interaction between all these dimensions. A theory of everything should be able to explain everything. A theory of everything should be able describe the genes and heredity, the nanotechnology and wormholes, ghosts and angels, UFOs and aliens, evolution and species, a mathematical value for infinity and zero, and so on. That is where I am headed towards; to explain everything in one theory.

I will touch down the temporal dimensions in my next post; until then yours, in thinking - Q

Sound and light; are they both affected by time?

Time as I mentioned is not a linear cause that has only forward and backward directions. Time is a matrix with more directions so to speak. It is time that makes things interesting for us. If we are above time in dimensions, then we will not be able to enjoy our lives. There are dimensions above time which are not affected by time but have effect on time.

Before getting deeper into time, let’s talk about sound. Sound is merely vibration. Rather than stating sound or vibration, we could use the term resonance because not all the sounds really sound. And also not all the vibrations vibrate; but all resonances do resonate.

The sound or vibration could not be observed in space because there is no medium through which the vibration could pass. In other words, there should be mass to pass the vibration. There is another thing in this universe that acts like mass or we miscalculate as mass sometimes; gravity. Gravity should be able to conduct some form of sound; or resonance. Before explaining that, I will postulate if it is possible for sound to travel faster than light.

See, really all matter that we consider mass are not made up of fully mass. Essentially most volumes in the atoms are space; empty space. Only very little volume in the atoms are masses. Even these smaller particles are not really fully masses. They are made up of mass but have spaces inside them as well. When sound travels in the air; that means when vibration is produced in one spot, the molecules in the air are hit with that vibration, like someone punching them. The first molecules then travel in space until they hit the adjacent molecule. It is the speed of the molecule that matters as to how fast it would travel towards the next molecule and how fast it would make the other molecule move.

There is a value for the speed of sound in the air; really? It varies. If there is humidity, dust, smoke or even heavy concentration of gases in the air, then the speed of sound deviates. The higher the concentration the higher the speed will be. Sound travels faster in water because there are more concentrated molecules that make the vibration pass out to the next molecule faster. Also the distance between the molecules is less so that the time taken to pass the kinetic energy to the next molecule is lower.

Sound travels even faster in metals because their molecules are so densely arranged and the exchange of kinetic energy between molecules is faster so that if one end of the metal receives vibration, then it passes out the vibration on the other end through resonance of individual particles in it.

As I said before, it is not all atoms or subatomic particles that are made up fully by mass. When an atom or molecule travels towards another, they only push each other because of the forces they have so that their particles will never hit each other. If they did, then it will be a nuclear fusion or fission reaction. And if we find the exact and accurate rate of resonance with adequate energy, we can split atoms open and make nuclear fission and fusion reactions happen with a whistle in a much more controlled manner.

Back to the sound now; there is much energy lost in the transfer of the kinetic energy between two molecules because they never physically impact with each other. We only consider a metal as a continuous medium for sound to pass but no; even metals are not continuous mediums for sound to pass. Since metals are very good to pass sound, the rate of the loss of energy will be low and the speed will be contained more than it would be in other mediums.

What if there were a medium that was made up of only mass; just mass and no space, not even at subatomic scales? How would the sound travel? Consider having one thousand tennis balls aligned in one line and in 10 cm apart in a pipe. They cannot escape the pipe but they can travel along the pipe. Now if you hit the ball at one end of that pipe, it will move and knock the next one. If you hit the first one faster enough, then eventually the last ball at the other end of the pipe will pop out. Your energy would have transferred through 1000 balls.

Now, if you put all those balls in 2cm distances then the energy transfer will be more effective and the last ball will come out faster in less time than the first instance; with the same energy you could provide.

If you line up all the balls touching each other and hit the first ball, the last ball should get out instantaneously, but it will not. Because of the flexibility of each ball, it will take time until one ball pushes the other sufficiently to make it start pushing the other. This is because though the balls are solid, they have little non solid space inside. This space allows them to squeeze and then expand.

We can take the above three instances as references to the resonance of sound waves or vibration in namely the air, water and metal medium.

Now consider having the same dimensions for the third experiment but replace the balls with metallic and fully solid balls. What will happen? As you knock the first ball with a sound “ding…” you will see the last ball rolling out. This is only 100 meters. Just imagine that you used balls made up of a metal that does not squeeze and you made 300,000,000 meters of a line with those balls; make a straight line. Imagine that you are having a powerful light source at one end of the line and directed it parallel and towards the other end of the line.

Now, if you hit the first ball at your end and switch on the light at the same time; what is the expected result? Obvious, isn’t it? The last ball at the other end of the line will roll instantly and the light would reach there only after a second. Resonance can travel faster than light; so is sound and so is any vibration. The problem is we haven’t found anything that is made up of completely mass and only mass. It is not possible that we cannot make some but at this point I don’t want to take in that direction. I will come to that later.

So, if sound can travel faster than light, then it is not really travelling. It is existence at two points at once. A concept that is very closer to omnipresence. Conceptually, if we can have a material made up of only mass and made a rod across the universe; then sound would travel from one end of the universe to the other end in no time. That is, sound would be omnipresent. A dimension above time and not affected by time but can exist within time. It is not the sound of what we know as sound. It is a form of resonance. Sound as we know it, is one form of resonance.

There is a fact behind the mantras and reciting in religious and cultic traditions; they can produce resonance. A resonance that is formulated in the right way and applied to the right spot at the right time can do virtually anything. What I am saying is, you can speak and things will happen; if you spoke the right way and the right things. It is not as simple as that. I am not saying that you can call an atom in English and it would come to you, but I am telling that resonance can be produced by our own words. And resonance can manipulate energy, mass, space and even the times. That concludes that the word is capable of forming, manipulating and deforming anything, anywhere and anytime; omnipresent and omnipotent.

There is an issue with this postulation. I only suggested a hypothetical thought experiment with a hypothetical element of completely mass made solid. Is there anything in the universe that is completely continuous throughout the universe and acts like mass? Yes; gravity. Like photons for energy, there should be basic building blocks that make up the gravitational, magnetic and electric fields. All fields will come up to a common building block like all energy forms have photons as the basic building blocks. I will get to that later. Now to the possibility of sound travelling faster than light in the current universe; shall we?

Alternation in a field due to a foreign factor is instantaneous. A field does not travel as well; it exists. When an addition or deduction is made, the field changes accordingly and instantaneously; but the change could only be observed in chronological order because the cause will take time to enter or make a change in the field, any field.

The gravitational field should have basic building blocks that are not physical particles that are mass or could form mass; like photons. It is a very different concept where the string theory helps to explain it. I am not an expert in the string theory and I am not going to speak about it. I am going take the common understanding of the string theory as an example to explain what I understand about the basic building blocks of fields.

Let me get into the topic. If gravity is continuous and has basic building blocks, then it can resonate. Gravity does not have to have space inside the gravitational field. If a resonance is able to resonate through gravity, then it should travel faster and slower according to the concentration of the gravitational building blocks; which I will cover later.

Could it be proved in real time through experiments? Yes. If you can generate a vibration to maximum Hz that could be achieved with the available equipments today, we can test it. As the rate of vibration increases, the wave length of the sound will decrease. You have to get the maximum you can to create a sound wave that has wave length in a few nanometers or less. And you have to pass this vibration through a vacuum to make sure that there is no mass inside it. We can use a metal rod to enter the vibration into the vacuum and we can use lengthy vacuum pipes. If you use around a 100 m long pipe made of flexible plastic, then at the measuring end, you can simply eliminate the vibration passed by the pipe in calculations. If we find vibration to travel through vacuum, then it will be much faster; almost equal or more than the speed of light. We will know if it was the vibration passed by the pipe or by the vacuum.

We can use electromagnets to concentrate the fields inside the vacuum. We can also increase, decrease and adjust the concentration of the magnetic field inside the vacuum. Now, once everything is setup, if you start the oscillation of the source, and start increasing the strength of the field, then you can see that the resonance will start to pass through the vacuum. You can simply identify it when the vibration had travelled faster than it would through the pipe or in any known medium. And the higher the amplitude and lower the wavelength of the waves produced, the higher the speed of resonance will be too.

I am unable to conduct anymore thought experiments on this subject anymore. My capacity is limited; I can only think up to my capacity and no more. Nevertheless, if the experiment is carried out, the results will prove that resonance can travel through vacuum. That will prove that if you made the right sound in the right way, it can travel even through vacuum. I don’t know yet to explain in detail, but depending on the factors involved, the resonance could travel starting from one least unit of space per one life time of the universe up to the speed of light and above.

When something travels faster than the light, then that something does not travel along time; it travels through time or in time. Light is limited by its speed. Light cannot travel faster than light. Sound in essence can have a speed or velocity, it also could coexist with time or it could even be above the time dimension. It depends on what the resonance is.

The basic building blocks of time, the basic building blocks of gravitational and magnetic fields, the dimensions above time are interesting subjects. As I said, I will use string theory as an example to explain my understanding of what these are.

I will touch onto the next dimensions and time travel in the next posting. I could have published the relationship between the space, mass, energy and time in equations but it was too early to publish that. So I will get onto some more details in understandable story telling manner before getting stuck into the “scientifically scientific” in the upcoming posts.

I will let you know whatever I had been thinking…

The basic building blocks of everything…

Let’s begin with energy to which we already know that there is a basic building block. Photons are energy packets that contain a certain magnitude of energy. A photon is the basic building block of any energy. Photons of different energy forms contain different magnitudes of energy. The wavelength of the radiation determines the level of energy in that photon. Well, this shouldn’t be the case if photons are the basic building blocks that make up energy. If photons can contain different quanta of energy, then there should be an explanation to it. And here it is.

Photons are like transparent images. Consider having a transparent image of a red square. Now consider having a few hundred of those images; all are transparent. Now, depending on the transparency, you will need x number of images to align upon each other to make a non transparent red square image.

If your original images are like 90% transparent then you will need more images to make a non transparent image than you would with 10 % transparent images. This is the case with photons. It is not necessarily one photon that we count as photon. Within the given space needed for a photon, there can be a number of photons got inside each other. It is like having transparent images in a 2D space, but photons do share a 3D space. Within a given volume; that is the least volume of space needed for a photon to exist, there can be a number of photons.

How much number of photons can co-exist in a space for one photon? We can calculate that. If we know the minimum unit of mass to exist, then we will have to calculate how much energy that mass could convert into and divide that by the energy of a single photon. To doing this, we will need the minimum unit of mass that can exist and the minimum magnitude of energy a photon can have.

To begin with these calculations, we have to use some existing data. We might not be able to measure the least unit of mass or energy as immediate as that, but we can start calculating and seeing how deep the rabbit hole goes. We can start calculating to see what the minimum possible unit of energy or mass is.

Simply, if we consider the particles that we have measured the mass for; we can then see the differences in mass. The mass of subatomic particles are known. If we start seeing the least difference of mass between two particles, then that will be an indication that mass could get up to that difference.

To make it understandable, may I suggest an example? Let’s say that we have particles to which we know the masses. Let’s say that there are particles x, y and z that have masses of 53 units, 48 units and 69 units. The difference between x and y is 5 units. The difference between y and z is 21 units and the difference between x and z is 16 units. Now, the fact that the differences are 5, 16 and 21 units means that there is a difference between the differences. The differences between the differences are 11, 5 and 16. We will have to calculate and keep going until a situation where the differences are multiples of the least difference calculated.

If we started up with a different set of mass values and ended up with the differences of 3, 6 and 9, then we can say that mass should begin as low as a unit value of 3. Because the difference is 3 and multiples of 3, any mass could be made up of a basic building block that has a mass value of 3 units.

This is already complex; I don’t want to give the mass values of electrons here. If you understood the concept, then you can start working with the mass values of known particles. It is not that easy either; but is no impossible. It is not simple because the mass values are much deviating. They are not just like 53, 44 and so on. Just for a demonstration, the masses of an electron and a proton are around 1800 times different. And the smallest and least weighing particles have masses that are headache for you to calculate; but still, it could be done.

It is in the same way, the minimum energy for a photon to exist could be calculated by measuring the difference of the differences between the energy levels of the photons of different forms of energy. Sound is not a form of energy but sound can travel faster than light. I will come to that later.

Now when we come to a point where we have identified the least amount of energy that has to exist for a photon to exist, and the least amount of mass that has to exist for a particle with mass to exist, we can then calculate how many photons could stay in one single space. The photons can concentrate upon each other until they reach this critical number of photons. Once the critical number is reached, the photons will turn into the least unit of mass. They should turn into the least unit of mass. This can be proven by experiments too.

If you make several beams of light to meet in a single point, then they will start forming mass; it is as simple as that. Although it is simple to say, to see the results, you will need hundreds of light beams at maximum concentrations. LASER, MASER or any other amplified radiation might not produce the exact results expected. The best candidate is the white light or daylight. If you can have like a thousand light sources and direct them all through lenses to focus them all at one single point, then they will hit each other in the central point; if you had the sources in a circular arrangement. At once, when the concentration is high enough to meet the maximum density of light where photons cannot co-exist in the same space, they will start creating mass. We have technology to carry out this experiment and observe and calculate the outcome. I simply don’t have the facility to do it but I will be happy to be at the site where you do it.

The place should be a vacuum. It is best to have the space covered with material that wouldn’t react to radiation. This is because just closer enough to forming mass; the light beams will be creating some high energy radiation as well. And when the mass starts forming, the mass will not be atoms or subatomic particles but less than that. We just don’t know what they will do. I think they will add up to the matter around and form radiating material with little addition of mass. They would not produce subatomic particle or atoms at this stage. To produce subatomic particles, the mass units should be formed in abundance like in the big bang. It is not very possible that we get that in the first experiment. What we will get is that the newly forming mass will add up to the existing mass.

Now, if that mass adds up to electrons, then it will create excited electrons because they will tend to move away from the nucleus. If the mass adds to the protons or the neutrons or any other particle inside the nucleus, then the atom will become much stable, and less active.

One way to knowing where the mass got added up is to monitor the radiation of the materials at the facility; especially heat radiation. If the mass added up to the electrons, then the materials would cool down as the electrons will absorb energy to get away from the nucleus. If the mass added up to the nucleus, then the materials would heat up because the electrons would be attracted towards the nucleus and will release heat or other forms of radiation.

So, mass is made up of energy when energy condenses to the point where it cannot exist as energy. And the basic unit of mass should have the same volume of a photon in the space. And that volume should be the least volume of space. All three dimensions would have a common place to meet.

The photons, the least units of mass, and the least volume of space; these all will be measured and could easily be identified and we will all be proud that we went another step ahead in science. What about the time? It has a different set of rules, laws, behaviors and basic building blocks. To get to the time, we will need to know the making of the basic building blocks of space, mass and energy.

Even when we find out for sure the basic unit of mass, energy and space, these would all be made up of something else. We will have to get to that something else in order to understand time. Since time cannot be explained in terms of space, mass or energy, time still has interactions with these dimensions.

I am ready to share. Just be sure that you understood it all up to this point to pass through to time…

Let there be a big bang!

When the universe started from singularity through big bang, there was no time. So time should have begun there, or it should have been formed. If something could be formed, then it should also be destroyed or transformed. The singularity or nothing as we did call it because it is nothing for us that we cannot understand, comprehend, measure, quantify or describe it. It should not be confused as a massive mass with an infinitesimally small volume and space or anything like that. It was different; entirely different that it was not mass, it was not time, it was not energy, it was not space and it was nothing; it was singularity.

The first two things that should have formed must be the time and space for anything else to exist. The first two products should have been time and space. The first product should have been time rather than space. Time could exist without space but space cannot exist without time. Time can transform into space and other dimensions. The other dimensions can form time as well.

Space is not necessarily continuous along the universe. There must be pockets where there is no space but voids that have nothing in them. In a void, no space, no energy and no mass could exist but time can. By saying void, I don’t mean a vacuum; no, not even vacuum would exist in a void. By our scientific measurements, we cannot directly see a void. Only way to check if there are voids in the space is to check along the time and see differences.

A void cannot have spatial dimensions but essentially there will be space around the void. This space around the void could not be seen as having something in the middle like a pocket because having a void in the middle would not affect the spatial dimensions but will affect time.

If you consider the dimension of time within the void, that is the duration of time inside the void, then there would be discrepancies in the times when you conduct some observations around the void. For example, if a beam of light is travelling through a volume of space where a pocket of void is present, then the light would not travel through the void because there is no space inside the void. Nevertheless, the light will still have to pass through the time inside the void. This will create a delay in the travel of light.

The voids are more probable around the places where time could be released as a side effect some activity. Time should be made in some processes and should be absorbed in some other processes. It is most probable for time to be formed in places where reactions opposite to that happened in the beginning of the big bang. There are such reactions taking place in the black holes.

Black holes are not entities of massive mass that have infinitesimally less volume; no, black holes are just space volumes where the gravity is just too high. The gravity in a place can replace the influence of mass in the same place.

The black holes in the center of galaxies are not just the only ones out there. Since the stars and all celestial bodies in a galaxy are rotating, they automatically have a center of gravity to the galactic body. This center of gravity will be pulled from all sides by the objects. Due to the pull from all objects towards all other objects, a resultant gravity is formed in the center of gravity. This then is the force that pulls things in. As the center starts to pull all mass in, the masses react with each other too. As they move towards the galactic center, the gravitational forces of the adjacent objects will lead them to lean away from the center, forming a new center of gravity. As all the objects start moving, they just confuse and displace the center of gravity until they get into circular or similar orbits. Once all the objects start moving around the center in a circular or similar path, then the galactic center of gravity remains relatively stable than it was before. Once the center of galactic gravity is reasonably stable, then all the objects are now being pulled towards the center but also are travelling in a cyclical or similar path. This will create the massive force of gravity that is equal to the unequal forces of gravity between the bodies that are exactly in the opposite directions.

That is when two objects are in the opposite directions to the center and have the same and equal mass, they will create the same and equivalent gravitational pull at the center and that will result in zero gravity. If a galaxy had perfectly aligned objects that had spun around in perfect distances and directions to cancel out each other’s gravity, then there would be no resultant gravity in the center of a galaxy. Hence, there would be no black hole in the centre of such galaxy too.

Galaxies with more flat planes should have the most powerful black holes than the ones with more perpendicular sizes. If a galaxy was more flat, then the objects have to be in perfectly opposite directions and distances to cancel out the effects in the center but if a galaxy is less flat, then the opposites up and down the plane can have cumulative effects on gravity from objects in all sides which will result in more balancing and cancelling of gravity in the center of the galaxy.

A galaxy should also have a maximum mass that it could hold. There should also be a maximum speed for a galaxy to rotate. At a certain rotation speed, the galactic center and the black hole will be more stable. If the galaxy is a little bit slower, it will be pulling objects in. If mass or energy enters into the black hole, they will have to experience the pressure of the gravitational pull and therefore disintegrate. In flat galaxies, the effect will be less aggressive because they will have a larger area where the gravity is distributed and the center is not in a very tight space. In much thicker galaxies, because of the gravity cancelation at all sites, the center of gravity will have less resultant gravity but within a very tiny space. So the effect of the black hole will be very aggressive.

So for our observations, we will see flat galaxies having black holes that weigh heavier than those in thicker galaxies. In fact, there is no mass in the black hole; it is only gravity.

It is not necessary that the galactic centers that have black holes; black holes could be found in the center of galactic clusters where the resultant gravity from all the galaxies in the group are creating a center of gravity. And this place will be much intensive but also will be with much bigger space. If we find a black hole in the center of the home group, then it will not just be black hole but it will be a black space with a black hole in the middle. This black space will defy all electromagnetic laws and will behave insane. It will not absorb light completely but will bend it, slow it down or even speed it up. It will disturb the time; it will disturb the gravity itself.

To check if there are black holes in the centers of galactic clusters, we can measure the gravity or the mass that is present in the space in the center of the galactic clusters. If we have an estimated mass of galaxies in a cluster, then we can predict the gravitational center of that cluster. If we observe that place, it would be just space without any objects but will have mass. This is not actually mass, but the resultant gravity that creates a pull onto the surrounding galaxies. Dark matter might be present but most of the unseen mass that should be there according to mathematical calculations is because there are black holes and black spaces in places where we have not looked for. And these are fields of gravity that is so big, they are responsible for a vast amount of mass that is being calculated.

And there will be black spaces and black holes in between the galactic clusters and then finally there will be a black hole and a gigantic black space at and around the gravitational center of the universe. Finding out the gravitational center of the universe will also reveal the real center of the universe.

If we look in a perpendicular direction to the galactic plane of our own galaxy which easier because we are at the outer side of the galaxy, we can measure the resultant gravity and see which side has much pull. If we check around in 360 by 360 degrees and plot a 3D graph to see how strong the gravity was in each of those directions, then we can deduct the effects of our solar system, galaxy, and home group and then see where the resultant gravity points to. It will be at that direction that the center of the universe will be.

Back to the point of time, space and void. So, black holes are so massively forceful that they destroy anything that gets into them and smashes them to similar conditions that were present closer to the time of the big bang. At the very center of gravity in a black hole where the least unit of space could exist; if a point of mass enters there, it cannot remain as mass. It will then be destroyed into more basic building blocks of the universe. Even space should be pulled too roughly that it would disintegrate at the very center of the black hole. This is where, voids could be formed. A void is a place without space but time; can exist. The black hole cannot disintegrate time but we might experience lack of time inside the black hole or our measurements could indicate that time has been absorbed inside the black hole and that is because time can exist inside void and we have no way to get inside the void or to measure it; not yet.

When mass is destroyed, it does not just form energy. It cannot form just energy; there should be time being released and space being absorbed. At sites of black holes, it is mostly the space that is being ripped off and destroyed to form voids and energy. These voids are places packed with time but nothing else. When and if the time inside the voids would transform, then it will transform into space and energy so that the void will be filled with space. There should be a linear relationship between the magnitude of the void and the magnitude of the time encapsulated by it.

By observing a black hole away from it, we can encounter voids in between us and the black holes. If we consider different electromagnetic radiations stream, rays or beam originating from the galactic center, we can see that they travelled in different time durations, although their speed was the same.

The trouble is, if two beams travelled in the same speed across the same distance, they should both be at the destination at the same time. If you observe a black that is in a galaxy whose plane is perpendicular to the observer, then the energy and radiation coming out of the black hole will not have much interaction by the objects in the same galaxy as the waves are travelling perpendicular to the plane where most objects are. If we are able measure the time taken for radiations that originated at the same event, we will definitely see differences between the time duration but still, their speeds will be the same.

And that is because there are voids where time is present but space is not. When a radiation comes through the space where the void is, the radiation cannot travel through the void as it is not space but travels through additional time because there is time inside the void. This will result in the radiation that travelled encountering a void to take longer time to arrive at destination. Still, if you measure the speed at which it arrived at destination, it will not be lower; but the resultant velocity will be lower due to the additional time taken.

When mass enters into the black hole and becomes space and energy absorbing time, the voids will be filled with space and energy and will be gotten rid of the time that was captured in them. If time was absorbed from a spatial dimension then more space than where the time was absorbed from will collapse to form void, energy and will leave additional time being inside the void.

There should be a linear relationship between the magnitude of time absorbed from a space and the magnitude of space that will collapse to form void and energy.

Nearby the black holes, it will mostly be the space that turns into void and energy. Only very rarely would there be mass turning into space, energy and absorbing time. This is because for the basic unit of mass to get ripped off, it has to travel to the least unit of space inside the black hole and the probabilities of a unit of mass entering the exact same spot are very much lower. And this is due to the fact that the resultant gravity is changing the center of gravity continuously. When observed in a larger scale it is insignificant but when looking at a nano scale, it is obvious that before an object can reach to the exact center, it would either be distracted by centrifugal force of the rotation which it would have gained as a result of extreme speeds or simply turn around the center and travel in an elliptical orbit.

But when mass does get destroyed and create space and energy absorbing time, we should be able to measure that but there are few little issues. Since this action creates space and absorbs time, there is much space with less time is formed between us and the location where this reaction takes place.

If there were voids where this action takes place then the void would lose time and gain space and energy to disappear but if there were no voids then it will be more space collapsing and forming voids because there is time being absorbed?

If there were voids and they gave up time and filled in with space and energy, then we will have much space but less time. If there were no voids and the action took place, then we will have less space and double the magnitude of time less than in the first action. The time I am talking is not just the unidirectional time in seconds but it includes it as well.

If there was the first type of reaction taking place then we will have radiation coming to us in shorter time periods but with the same speeds. That means, we will feel intensified radiation waves. If the second type of action takes place then we will have less time but much less space which means that the radiations will be coming in the same speed but will have taken much time to reach us.

Now, both reactions can take place star formations and in stars. Our own sun in the solar system is using mass to produce energy. It should also create space and absorb time. There will be voids formed and deformed. As a void is filled with space, then there is no void. When time is absorbed from space, then there will be voids forming. Ultimately, it is the time that will be absorbed. The space will be formed and then absorbed and then formed. The energy will be released. The time gap between the stars and us will get shorter and the exposure to the energy will be higher or intensified. This is if the time absorbed is absorbed only from the linear direction towards us.

Still, even when time is not linear, we can measure these waves travelling at same speeds but having taken different time intervals to reach the same distance. It is much easier to observe radiation from the sun than observing radiation from the middle of black holes.

Alright; if time could be formed and deformed, if space could be formed and deformed, if mass and energy could be formed and deformed then how is it possible that they create each other? There should be some relationships that make them to turn into each other.

It is like energy can transform and take different forms. Electricity, heat, light, gamma rays and other forms of electromagnetic radiation are all made up of photons. Depending on the wavelength and energy level, they transform into each other forms of energy. Basically they are all different arrangements of photons with different magnitudes of characters.

So what is it or what are those that are common to all mass, energy, space and time? What is it that makes it possible that everything came into existence from nothing?

There has to be something that is the basic building block of everything. Can something be the basic building block for time as well as energy and mass? Can space be made up of the same basic building blocks that make up time? Does time have a basic building block?

Yes; definitely, time is not continuous, it must be discrete. There must be a minimum unit of time. Space must be discrete as well; there must be a minimum unit of space. The same should be true for mass. We know that it is true for energy; that there is a minimum unit for energy to exist.

In the next post; I will tell you what I know.