Traditionally, the vulgar scientific materialist depict the universe as a place of space, empty and void, devoid of its quality. What they leave out is the actual quality of space, known as “time”. Before we understand why it is so hard to define time, let us explain why it is so easy to empirically demonstrate space.
The concept of space is easy to empirically demonstrate because you can simply point to it with observation. This means that when you observe anything out in the universe, space is always presupposed and simultaneously present as the plain manifold of the objects. geometrically, space is the area whereby objects interact. When you look out into the universe with the narrow perception derived from a classical telescope, space appears to be abundant, constituting massive spatial differences between planets and stars. But this sight of the universe is narrow because it is literally derived from a narrow view.
The “normal” telescope which is the ones discovered during Galileos time, only magnify objects in space that appears to be small. The narrow focus point, or focal- point of view of the object, reducing the relationship between the object and the circumstances greater than it, will bring that object more truer to its size relative to the size of the particular observer. It is like when you bring two object closer to each other within the same spatial dimension, their size each begins to show itself relative to each other. Something that is small from far away may end up being large when brought close to something appearing relatively big, but than appears small when brought next to something much bigger.
The fallacy of expertise
People of the early enlightenment era, such as Leonardo da Vinci, and in the Ancient Greek tradition, like Aristotle, are not known to be linear in expertise, as we today define the term “expert” to mean specific knowledge in only one area and domain. The exclusion caused by being an “expert” in one domain is that it presupposes, because someone is expert in one area, he must mean that he is deficient in all other areas. In modern times, you can only talk about a topic if you are a so called “expert” in it. However the latter claim does not logically follow from the former, because in the former case, when we say that someone is knowledgeable in only one area, it cannot mean to exclude that he is also knowledgeable in other areas as well. Knowledge is not something that you either have or have not, but it is rather a “degree” of knowledge. The human being has the potential to be knowledgeable in all areas, to a certain “degree”, more in some, and less in others. It is a modern assumption to view knowledge as an object that you either have or have not. As if, knowledge is something you have possession of, or own as an object.
The enlightenment figures like Da Vinci, who we know of him by his paintings, was also in fact a crude astronomer among other things. Just like Aristotle was also a physician and a biologist among other things. Aristotle and Leonardo’s approach to science is observational: they try to understand a phenomenon by depicting it in the utmost detail closest to what actually is. The difference between Aristotle and Leonardo’s work for example, is in what state of reality the object. They both use observation as the method to deduce the nature of the phenomenon. However, Leonardo da vinci. aims to capture the most accurate image of the object in the particular moment it is found by perception. This realist approach aims to reinvent an object by depicting it as accurately as possible, perceived by the organs of observation. For da Vinci, objects do not move, but only the faculty of observation moves to conceive abstractions in the world. Beyond this method of viewing the world, he lacks theory, and only has practice, in engaging with the world as a set of “abstractions”. Da Vinci does not try to impose anything else other than what the phenomena is at the moment he observes it. This is akin to a photograph, taking a picture of the object, but unlike the picture, the mind is capable of picking out more details and nuance that a still static image can never pick out. The mind is capable of observing the motions and internal movements of the object. This is where Leonardo da Vinci’s work reaches its limit, and where Aristotle’s philosophy begins. Aristotle is concerned with the motions of growth and generation, the coming into being, and existing out into nothing.
Telescope
The “abstraction” that the universe is mainly space and void is derived from a limited perception of the universe caused by the telescope. When you see space through a telescope you only see the small area of space disclosed by the circumference of the telescopic lens. The question becomes, if the sole purpose of the eye is to narrow down on the object as much as possible, what is the function of the mind as receiving that object in a specific way? The mind generalizes that object to understand the universal nature within it that goes beyond it. Perception limited to a sole thing as much as possible, isolate an object as much as possible away from other objects, then the brain has the opposite capacity. It sees the total number of objects in relation to each other and their conjunction to the whole. This total number is the inherent nature that makes each thing relevant for the other, like the nature of a species govern each individual member animal in that species. In other words, each individual member is expressing, or aiming to express, the nature of the species it belongs to.
The term “species” is not only involved in the biological sense but describes any group of objects sharing a common function. Although we use it in that way less and use it more in the domain of living things. The easy reason why this is the case remains unclear, but it is clear that things characterized as “living” do exhibit the relevant of generation implicit within them as their source of self expression. Life is able to generate the image of order and repetition into a sequence of an organized continues identity.
The function of “abstract” thinking is to do the opposite of what the organ of sensation is meant to do when transferring information to the source. The abstract, by substance, views as much as things all at once as possible. Change the magnitude of the observation that makes small single things bigger, into a magnitude that makes the biggest things the smallest, then you have space entirely begin to fill, with a single undistributed substrate of all things, indifferent from each other i.e., reduce the massive spatial extension between objects in space, the opposite of void appears, clusters and clusters of stars and galaxies containing planets and source of life begin to emerge as the dominant quality filling the landscape of the universe.
Time is the true value of space
The equally necessary, but more difficult concept to understand, I.e., time, is the true value of the universe. Value is measured by quality, which is more fundamental than quantity because quantity is itself first and foremost a quality, and quality is a quantity insofar as quantity is a measure, and not the actual thing, of something other, it is secondary to a primary substance. The universe is not only space, but it is a place of time, moments of events. But time is almost impossible to explain. Augustine of Hippo was asked once — “what is time?” — He replied, — “I know what it is, but when you ask me, I do not”. This answer perfectly denotes the true nature of time. We presuppose a certain continuity in the world, that at one point something is one thing, and at another point, it is something else. This appearance of continuity involves an implicit discrete measure of being and the opposite — non-being—, both simultaneously and instantaneously present in contradiction with each other. It is the conception of what each is against the other that constitutes Being appearing to exist, and non-being rightly lacking itself as a quality different from itself as an “other”, I.e., not existing. When we look out into space, we see that it is a place filled with events. Attached is one astonishing Hubble telescope image.
The portal in space
The Hubble telescope is unlike the classical one because it does not reflect or redirect light to alter the size and distance of objects relative to the eye so as to produce a closer, or a more magnified, look of the object. Instead, the Hubble involves mirrors that absorb the light being emitted from objects in the universe. The “mirrors” of the advanced modern Hubble telescope is ultimately a big “camera”, which gathers the light particles from space, in the form of heat and other light sources of energy, and captures the images of these light energy sources. Many different discrete levels of energy are captured, and their true image, the form they exhibit, are transferred as the information data. What we see according to the Hubble is the opposite of the classical telescope, which only focuses on specific far away objects and brings out their details. The Hubble captures simultaneously the details of many different objects each within tight spatial relative coordinates with each other.
The problem with the classical telescope is that of narrow sightedness, wherein the detailed observation of one objects means an exclusion of the proper total magnitude size of the universe, and this means lacking a general image of what the universe is as a quality and not just as a place for quantities. The Hubble solves this by showing that the universe is a place of an innumerable set of objects each exhibiting a different and unique quality in the world. But what the Hubble cannot show is how objects are qualities because it only captures an “instant”, a limited abstraction of the objects in question. Therefore you could not pick out or explain what those objects are as qualities, you only see a general form and a certain image, but cannot see how that is one image as part of a sequence of a living process of an activity. When you do not see something in motion, but only a static still image of it, you only saw it at one moment, and it is a fallacy to assume that this particular moment is the one to describe the whole of what the thing actually is. It is like seeing a picture of a man hunched over and assume that humans must be configured in that manner, when the opposite is true, man is known and distinguished from other animals as an upright hominid.
In the onset it is important to lay out some presuppositions that we have to keep in mind when investigating into the reality of what it means for the universe to exists. When we say “holographic universe”, we do not mean that the universe is not “real”, but rather the question is, in what sense is it real?, I.e., when is the universe, and where is it, both of these are contextual descriptions of what it means for anything to be “real”. The notion of “reality” has to describe both where something is in space and when something is in the context of time.
potentiality for instance as opposed to the usage of something real, does not have a particular or special “when” and “where” of the occurrence of an event. In a potential state, in quantum called “decoherence state” because it is a physical law that is a description of a mental quality, coherence, the mental state of organization; in the definition of what in philosophy is called a “potentiality“, the same event can occur at two different times at the same place, at two different places at the same time, and can happen at the same place at two different times. In other words, when we say “my body is muscular” when it is not, then I am only potentially muscular and that I have to go to the gym and actualize on that non-reality; which is an actuality, because it exists as fundamentally potential for reality, in the sense of being prior to its presupposition. One must have to presuppose a potential before you can say it is a reality, and in other words, which is to say the same thing, a potential is itself a reality, both reaffirm, that something more actual is present prior to what is taken as ”real”. What is considered “real” in the sense of existing here and now, has as its “when” the occurrence in the present, and the “where” as location in some space extension between two
The hologram definition as applied to the universe is not that the universe is not real because it is a representation of something else which is more real, but rather the standard for the reality of the universe is that it is in fact a reflection of something more actual and therefore that is the potential for its reality. A reflection is the the essence of a representation because the qualitative definition of representing something is to reproduce it in the most exact and accurate manner possible while knowing that once something happens it can never be made to happen again in the exact same way again.
our classical mechanics lay out the foundation of locomotion, but the concept of motion generally, in its philosophical context involves in what the Aristotelian notion of “motion as generation”, or the movements of something coming into being is the most fundamental motion.
The classical motion -loco- motion- states that once an object changes location it leaves behind an old position and gains a new one. This is meant to describe when an object moves in space, but it fails to describe when an event moves in time, or rather when an event comes into being. We can ask that, once something happens, where did it go? Where did the prior moment go? And where did it go into, or rather, what happens next, will it go whence the present moment is gone? The present is constantly leaving behind a past moment and entering a future one without ever stopping at the future it arrives, or remain in the past it leaves behind, it is constantly escaping these two end extremes of time. In other words, it is a complete transition.
Classical mechanics of motion can say that the one and same object at one point in time changes, it leaves behind its old position and takes a new one, in other words, an object cannot be both at the same place at the same time, it has to be at two different places at at the same times, or that in two different times it can relatively be at the same space. If it is in one place it cannot also not be in that same place. But quantum decoherence states that the same object can occupy two different places at the same time, this means that the object is not just in a particle place, but it is also in a wave state. The particle state of an object is its existence in space, but in time, the phenomenon is a wavelength, an extension of events.
the law of inertia classically is concept that aims to outline how an object that is unmoved remain in the fix state that it is, it describes this by also asking how an object in constant motion remains in such motion. Newton’s first law states that, if a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. In quantum mechanics, the same object may both be and not be at the same time, it is in a potential state. It’s nonbeing coinciding with its being is also happening both simultaneously at the same time and in the same place. This is how for example we can see that things form a static and stable conception, but while at the same time the objects constituting that continuity are also simultaneously moving in opposing determinations from each other, and are all moving out and changing form while remaining the same static thing.
Hubble
The Hubble images are the most extensive images taken of deep space. The interesting notice about how the Hubble telescope works to capture the images of the universe is that it looks out as far as possible into space while simultaneously sucking from that darkness as much light as possible and then capture every frame per second of the light intake from space, that light holding the reflection of stars and galaxies million and million of light years away. .
The Hubble telescope’s power does not lies in its ability to magnify objects. It works by collecting more light than the human eye can capture on its own. The larger a telescope’s mirror, the more light it can collect, and the better its vision. Hubble’s primary mirror is 94.5 inches (2.4 m) in diameter. This mirror is small compared with those of current ground-based telescopes, which can be 400 inches (1,000 cm) and up, but Hubble’s location beyond the atmosphere gives it remarkable clarity. The Hubble telescopes therefore can only get an indirect perception of the universe through the distant light it collects from space. Although this is how vision itself sees anything anyways. The point is that deep within deep space the first layer of it is just simply light, the light reflecting off all things, and only beyond that light we have what we presuppose as the objects of space such as galaxies, stars, planets etc.,
The Hubble telescope focuses on space and took hundred of thousands of images that show a deeper and deeper conception of space. It is stated that the deeper the image of a galaxy in space, the older that galaxy is and closer it is to the so called origins of the universe. But this way of looking into “deep space” is contradicted by zooming into any one galaxy conceivable within space. When we take any single galaxy among the million of other galaxies and zoom into that, what we see is that this galaxy becomes its own plain of space disclosing yet another million of stars and their own solar systems.
The conception out of that galaxy, just like the conception out of our own to perceive deep space, is exactly ends at the same result, that of more galaxies out into deeper space. The Hubble telescope shows a picture of the universe as infinite, and an infinite universe is holographic. Any point taken on it, when focused on, results into a passage of the universe as infinite. You look through one galaxy and you see an infinity of galaxies, and then pick any one single galaxy and zoom into that, you see another set of infinite sets of stars, and through that you see more sets and so on and so forth. The interesting aspects of this viewpoint of the universe is that from a certain distance, all these galaxy appear to be clustered together in a compact system, however we know that the spaces between these galaxies are infinity vast,
if we examine Hubble images of deep space, we see abstractions of a living universe, moments of a total movement of everything, at every level and stage of development.
There are different gradient to the fabric of spacetime in which all galaxies lay on, some are closer some are deeper into the depth of spacetime.
the deeper cruveses of spacetime makes it seem by photos that some are overlapping others, but in reality all these galaxies are distant from each other and are at different time periods, it is just from the refection of the light that they appear to be occupying the same plain.
hubble’s law
Hubble’s law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law, is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther they are the faster they are moving away from Earth
When we see the picture taken by the Hubble of galaxies covering space, nothing in that picture is “accurate” and everything is a contusion of the real distances, size, shape, etc., of all these galaxies, e.g,, some appear to be a smaller light because they are so far but really they are bigger than other galaxies that appear to be bigger light because they are closer, while others appear to exist when in reality they have been already dead for million of years, but only now the light captured arrived for our viewing of a moment in in their life. The distances between then on a 2 dimensional plain appears to make them close, but from a 3 dimensional plain they are much further away.
this is a portal
These so called nebulas are so large that the little light on it is only the size of a galaxy, so imagin a spec within that galaxy like the earth. In fact all planets are little particles from these monstrous gases star dust from dead stars. A nebula is a portal way from one universe into another, for example, behind that blue tint within the nebula is another parallel reality. this way this works is that a nebula is so big that it can only be discerned from very far away, once they are approached eventually a small object, even at the size of a planet, would not even realize that it has entered a different universe.
this is a stardust forming into a nebula which is a conception forming to differentiate one universe from another universe, this is a pathway, a portal of one reality to enter into another.
these dark areas behind the blue tint is known as “dark matter” which is really a layer of void, or non-being, separating one plain of reality, like a sheet of 2-dimensional sheet of spacetime, standing parallel, in relation to another plain of spacetime, meditated by a plain or a sheet of dark matter, or an impenetrable matter separating off different periods of space, entrance into this matter is actually to form it into crevices, or wormholes of spacetime, whose along the walls of these curved holes exists a plain of galaxies.
An entrance into another conception of a reality. The coexistence of these galaxies have been coordinating together for so long that they combine together to conceive the form of an independent being that they are only a small part of, perhaps forming only as one cell of it.
The universe consists of these Being like formations of galaxies. Being with a capital B denotes a living entity and not merely that a thing just exists.
They merge together to form a conception different than both parts used to make it. These images capture moments of the transaction happening, an instance of a process.
That’s a “tear” in the universe, a slit into a different universe. This may sound grandiose but it is really simply, as you approach this disk galaxy, you enter it, and it becomes your world.
The entire known universe is just a portion from a curve around a super passive black hole.
the Hubble does not notice the black hole at the centre. The word “centre” is strange in the context of the universe because the known universe is not a strip of contents, as if like a line, looped around a plain the centre of which is a black hole, but rather there is a concentration of matter around the black hole, yet away from that concentration curves a line as if around a black hole it is enclosing.
There is an infinity of magnitudes where the black hole is at the centre of the universe in two ways, first, it is the centre where the universe is a curve enclosed around it as a circumference. Second, within the curve of the line the centre point is any point on the surface of the curved circumference of the line because any point conjoins all other points together to form the line, and also the point is itself extended as a length to form the line.
The way this looks out into space when captured by a telescope is that there is a universe rotating a black hole at the centre of it, but the universe itself appears as only part of a curved line rotating some other super passive black hole that is just out of view forming the centre of what the universe only appears as a small portion of a curvature around it. This is an infinite derivative regress, it is ultimately the closest biggest conception in relation to the observer, and it is also the smallest furthest conception away from the observer. The latter is the internal within, and the former external without. The internal Is the the smallest points making up the whole, and the external parts are the boundaries without and away from all other parts dividing each other into an individuality.
Tunnel in space
A tunnel entrance into a different star. The entire universe is make out of these tunnels, entrances, and pathways formed by the warping of spacetime extended three-dimensionally into different portal pathways of existences. spacetime is warped into tunnel like structures due to black matter, and it looks like being inside a cave, except the cave walls are warped fabric of spacetime.
The biggest example that the universe, the entire manifold of spacetime, is tunnelling infinitesimally into a black hole, is captured by the following Hubble Telescope image, this one among many others photos showing the warp of spacetime.
When you look at the so called “warp” of spacetime, the term “warp” almost suggest a kind obscurity of something lacking figure and form. However the warp of spacetime exhibits an interesting form and physical substance. At first glance, it almost appears as if the fabric of spacetime acts like a liquid, where there is fluidity, a ripple, wavelength like continuum in the plain of spacetime. However this ripple effect of the fabric forms a spherical figure with the nature of the centre is a hollow hole wherein all the contents disclosed within the sphere fall into the centre. Where does everything falls to, is not captured the the mere image and abstraction of the dynamic and moving structure of spacetime.
Nebulas look like eye gods
It is only an assumption that the universe when observed from a distance presents itself as a material world. It is an assumption to think that the universe outside is a material world because it is complied out of physical elements like hydrogen, helium, light etc., all these are physical properties of the universe that can be observed, tested, studied and examined directly from nature. However they are only parts in terms of being a abstractions of the make up of the universe. They are abstractions because you can only come to know the universe as consisting of these physical components by coming into direct contact with them via the senses.
However the universe as a whole is only observed indirectly and can only be ever perceived indirectly because our sense perception is too limited and can only have a view of the universe limited to an abstraction of it, either a moment within it, or a limited extension of it. For example, when we look out into space, our measure between any nearest star is at least in the hundreds of thousands of millions km away. This means that the nearest star from our position takes up all units of measurement, in other words, it is only an abstract distance because it is impossible to arrive at by any being having a “real” duration, a finite duration measurable by any single unit of measurement rather than all units of measurement.
This means that the distance between any two places in the universe has an infinite units of measurement between them. In terms of spatial extension, there is a strange dichotomy between the observer and all other objects of observation. On the one hand, from the observers point of view, all objects in the universe appear to be far away from their position, however they all appear to be close to each other, clusters. Yet from each individual position occupied by an object in space, say a star, there is hundreds thousands millions of km apart.
This is an interesting phenomenon because as an observer approaches closer and closer towards one object, he is instantaneously going further and further away from all other objects simultaneously: this means that there is a distinction between any two objects approaching each other. The usage of “approach” here can mean either in an inertial frame of reference, which is when a physical object with zero net force moves with a constant velocity (which might be zero)—or, equivalently, it is what Newton’s first law of motion defines as a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a another force, in quantum mechanics that “other” force is called an interference pattern, which happens if two plane waves of the same frequency intersect at an angle.
The term “Approach” in the physical sense of motion can also be in a non-inertial reference frame, which is a frame of reference that undergoes acceleration with respect to an inertial frame.
The universe is projected out from the observer, a projection of their mind in the universal sense, this is why it is always away from them,
This is proven from the fact that time in the universe always imposes an element of constant change between the observer and the object such that both may neither become the other. How time maintains the observer as distinct from their object is explained not merely by the distance between them in space, that it takes this and that amount of time for one to arrive to the other, and also that both obviously occupy a different position on space and therefore cannot be identical by virtue of that, but time maintains the difference between observer and object because you can never arrive at a place in the universe while having that same place remain the same. The time it takes to arrive at any star in the universe is equal to the time it takes for that star to be completely something else. The question becomes that time at the ultimate level consists of this infinite influx of change, but from the observers position everything seems ever so still.
Take two things exactly the same and identical in every manner, identical in size, shape, density, mass etc., but multiply them into two different objects occupying two positions in space, then they have to become inherently different because it takes a distinction in time for one tit see the position of the either, and one can only take the position of the other if the other is not in that exact same position anymore, or if somehow one overtakes entirely the position of the other while the other remains in the same position, they both become one and the same identical thing.
In quantum the observer effects the results of the phenomenon: When you fire distinct discrete points through a slit their result becomes a wave, while if you fire a wavelength, the result becomes discrete points on the wall. These results are profound because they describe the relation between observer and their effect on the universe, not just the effect of the universe on the observer. How the universe is a projection out of the observer.
one object is in an inertial state, having another object in a non inertial state; this interaction is the relation between the object and observer as the soul of these reference frames, the object inertial, the observer non inertial.
With time it is impossible to arrive at the same star while that same star remaining the same.
Time is not merely a point, but a disclosed duration- and that is what we mean by a “point” of time because a “point” like “did you get the point?” In the sense of knowledge means to get the idea or the argument
it covers a certain conceived duration, “conceived” because it has to be disclosed within the reference of an observer, either by way of memory, or direct experience, or potentiality.
The fundamental relation of a point and a duration disclosed within each other is demonstrated by the idea of a “holographic universe”. This idea centres around the notion of the black hole, which we work backward to describe. A black hole is commonly explain as an object with so much gravity that not even the fastest substance, light, can escape it. Space is falling inside a black whole at the speed of light, and since light and space form the same unity, at the point which they cannot escape form the strong gradational pull of the black hole, the form what is known as an “event horizon”. Light at the event horizon forms a sphere. (Go to wormhole consciousness)
Light forming a sphere around a black hole may actually be a very crude and common phenomenon implicit in all objects in the universe. Except in a black hole we only see the bare relation of light to black hole, but more advanced form of this fundamental relation may perhaps be the implicit gravitational force in All objects like stars and planets consists of layers formed around a centre and the centre itself, like every object involves an infinitesimal point known as the schwartzchild radius. This radius is an infinitesimal singularity point like a microscopic black hole that all the mass of an object can be compressed in, or in other words, all the information of an object can be stored in.
Steven Hawkins challenges the primary conservation of information law by demonstrating that once an object enters past an event horizon, it is no longer accessible and disappear from the universe forever. This is a type of inaccessibility to information caused by a black hole is a law of irreversibility in relation to change in the universe. Once an object is destroyed in the sense that its form
is altered such that is not recognizable as the same object, the matter that was disfigured still remains in the universe. In quantum mechanics when an object is destroyed by altering its physical state, like burning a book, every molecule that was changed maintain within it the potential form of the object prior to its destruction so that theoretically that information can be derived and the object can be restored. If we had the ability to capture all the energy and atomic interactions of the burning process, that information can be put back together again.
Steven Hawkins concludes that information past the event horizon is lost, and one can derive this fact even from the obviousness that a black hole is a nullity, nothing can be conceived through a black hole. Steven Hawkins however makes this paradox a conclusion when really it is part of a whole result forming system. This is one instance characterizing Hawkins entire critique against quantum mechanics. Other scientists show that although information is lost past the event horizon, at the event horizon a perfect copy is captured and persevered.
A perfect copy remains on the 2-dimensional surface of the black hole, analogous to a hologram. Things fall into a black hole are still in the universe at the event horizon.
the concept of hologram is simply defined here as a “two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object”. The word holographic almost seems to imply from our common acquaintance with it that the representation is fake, but representation here means more of a conception than an imitation. The holographic universe suggest that three-dimensional object may in fact be representations of two-dimensional figures, which in geometry they obviously are, but for direct observation this is very difficult to perceive.
This describes the nature of the conception- black hole develops self-determination
Scientific materialist like Steven Hawkins observe the black hole in the universe as denoting a paradox because they are unable to explain how the element of chaos contributes to order. They argue that the destructive element of the black hole constitutes an absolute principle. A black hole does portray that in the universe there is an absolute passing of objects from being into nothing, and this process is irreversible, however part of the nature of this process is that it is reflected, and what is reflected is becoming that captures the transition from being to nothing, it makes that relation itself acquire a character and therefore develops determination.
When scientific materialist observe a black hole in nature they just see it as a phenomenon standing on its own, but they do not claim that what they observer might be a primal and fundamental state of an organic being. A black hole in the context of organicism is seen as depicting the first developmental stages of self-determination. When we look out into a black hole we are seeing one of the earliest signs of the universe as an organism developing the power of determination.
It is important to understand the logic of the self before we understand how the nature of a black hole constitutes the first steps of determination and is not a merely random phenomenon among other phenomenons that constitutes the destructive elements for them.
(Add to packet of energy)
The potential is an event particle
A sphere is an infinite duration not just because one can go around and around infinitely in every direction on a sphere, but that a sphere is a disclosed duration. To understand what it means for an object to be a disclosed duration, let us examine the past as a point in time. When we say that the past is a point in time, we presuppose knowledge of it in the future. Every past moment must be known in the future. Something known however can only be known from a present moment, which is a point not yet in the future.
There is a paradox in the way a moment in the past must somehow be connected with a future conception of it. In order for a moment in the past to be known in the future the past and future must be connected outside the present which constitutes their distinction. Past and future are therefore not points but rather the same duration, the present however is a point going from one end of the duration to the other, but because the duration is itself the same point, the present is in that duration.
The duration is captured as a point, and in that point, there is a passing duration, and the point disclosing the duration is itself passing in that duration. This is the nature of the way consciousness manoeuvres within its experience.
Spherical earth is infinite change
When we say that the earth is a sphere that is an abstraction of a shape but we often find comfort in this abstraction deluding us from the ultimate function of what it means to be a sphere.
The earth for example exhibits long term change in its plate tectonic activity.
In the ancient times of antiquity, voyages made from Ancient Greece to Egypt are analogous to modern day trips from North America to Europe, except in the ancient times the general consciousness has no idea of earths greater magnitude.
In a similar manner we lack today an idea of the earth changes during million of years. It might have been not even the same planet we view it today.
Motion is a set of possibilities turning into actuals contained in one of these actualities as an unchanging dimension. A black hole is closest to getting to a perfect circle in nature.
Black hole is the furthest point
(Video of black hole making a circle on the reflection of the lease)
This circular effect of light around the horizon we perceive is because a singularity is infinite so there cannot be any form to disclose the infinite density, mass, size etc., only that a finite light can be disclosed around that process. When all the stray lights revolve around the spherical black hole, the part where they cannot be absorbed appears to be the black hole, where the light reaches that limit around the inept part appears to be the event horizon.
However the phenomenon of a black hole describes the general way by which any finite object warps spacetime to form the dimension of space and time for itself, that it moves in space to contain it to actualize a set of possible changes into real events forming the time of it. For a finite object spacetime forms a sphere around the object as it ascends infinitesimally inwardly into the object. This inwardness are the possibilities of the object constantly coming out as the real moment of the present that is the object, and so the object appears static with changes happening to it, however the object is maintained static by its spatial element for perception, that something is always being perceived, as it’s possibilities takes that necessary moment for perception, or fills that place of space, that there alway needs to be something in space, and therefore the object is static in that sense, it is constantly changing into its possibilities to fill that space
A black hole is not a hollow place in a solid surface as we normally define holes in objects. A black hole is rather a void that is filled and dense with the capacity to not be entered or penetrated by anything. A black hole is the place for the conception. It is the fundamental point of energy where other substances can form over and make an object.
It is anywhere and everywhere on spacetime, in this sense that it’s uncertainty principle is not whether it is there or not because it being there and not being there, absent and present is what characterizes it’s qualities, yet it’s uncertainty is the way to which it is physically present. Black holes challenges what we understand by physics because it’s behaviour how it manifest into physical objects is unlike any other object. For example, we know that light enters but does not come out, in other words there is no bouncing effect off of it, while in all other things the impact between any two objects results in either both to bounce off each other, or break, or fuse, in other words the objects effect other objects in Poe proportional to their available matter and on the grounds that they are always present there along the way of changing each other.
While in a black hole an object enters but disappears and it reappears, theoretically throw a white hole, in a different form, but as far as a black hole goes, an object comes into contact and and it’s effect is nonexistent, while in any other object it may has an existent effect. Moreover the way black holes moves is unlike any other object also. They do move in space by changing location, but love by changing the configuration of matter near them, in other words they do not move, but other things move in relation to them. This is the only physical object in the universe that truly does not move. We say because it’s mass is too heavy, but again mass is a quality relative to it and therefore the measure of mass relative to it is too heavy, but the black hole it’s self has no mass because the way it suppose to have mass distinguishes a black hole from any other object, as it’s size and weight are extremely not proportional. For example there are very tiny black holes with the “mass” of large mountain.
Also black holes do not rest on any object, it’s not other object where one objects sits on the other or obits the other, they just exists as nullity of spacetime. Everything is a conception of something other, as to the question of what this other is actually a predicament. We normally associate a conception as belonging to a subject; something we identity as other than the conception, John conceives of his future, John is an identity of a body as a certain organism with a set of developments under social and normal circumstances, but to make that identity of John is itself a conception of John, as knowledge of what John is and John as a product conceived by nature and evolution. The conception is the same property that identifies itself as an other who is the object of that conception, but can only do so by being conceived as an other in the first place.
(Video of universe being sucked in)
The conception is what grows, comes into being, then goes or changes. The conception is both nothing and a being or the affirmation of one over the other, is the recognition of both as different, both as the same, both as nothing, and both as something. It is every possibility of any relation, it is in this way logical and therefore rational for every possibility is considered and it is also ethical because certain possibilities are considered and therefore determined over others.
A different perspective of a perspective
A black hole is the basic energy of the conception which is really matter exhibited in an aesthetical manner, and all the other properties like gravitational pull, mass, light properties, are the properties of what makes it substantial. The universe is a place for conception, that is all it really is, and the physical properties are the substantial aspects of having known conceiving something, it is the markers for having different conceptions.
Black hole is the furthest point
A black hole is the furthest point that the observer can see of the universe. The limit of all the light from the universe reaches, and warps at that point, because beyond that point, the observer has not yet conceived anything else of the universe, so the photon furthest from the observer is where the black hole is. Now “furthest” in this sense is not in distance only, because you can only approach a black hole, abs theoretically, there is a “Black hole”
I’m every object, the schawrtzchild radius, or that condensing any object enough times results in a black hole, I.e., a black hole can be achieved by way of any object. And so it is the nearest and furthest point from the observer, so near it cannot he conceived, yet so far it also equally the point beyond of which nothing is conceivable.