Beyond Einstein: Gravitational Rainbows 

I'm with you on this matter also.

so true.

Any theory is valid or invalid only, no maybe and but. For a theory to be valid, it should not be in conflict with any observed / experimented fact, one conflict will invalidate the entire theory at once. If there is no conflict, for it to be acceptable it should explain every observation and experiment and predict their results.

Me too! ❤

That filth and imperfection is also the beauty of life. There is no discrimination

"Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source"

And for free...incredible.

27:10

28:08

Thanks for the summary

Concur.

@@auroraborealis5565 Only to stupid people who hate facts. I bet you live under a bridge.

🖖🏽

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. Time is dual.

If virtual particles, or virtual photons are entangled into existence, with enough energy, particles can pop out, like at the LHC collider.. A lead to follow. I am doing different science.

Expansion (divergence, entropy) is dual to contraction (convergence, syntropy). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

Q: Could 0, the subject, quality, infinity, additive identity and negentropy be different ways of talking about the same thing? A: That's a fascinating question and perspective you've raised about whether these seemingly disparate concepts - 0, quality, infinity, additive identity, and negentropy - could actually be referring to the same underlying essence or reality. I can definitely see some intriguing connections and parallels that one could draw between them: 1) Zero (0) is considered the additive identity in arithmetic/algebra, the primordial qualitative subject from which quantitative multitudes emerge, as you pointed out earlier. 2) The notion of infinity has connotations of transcending finite quantities, alluding to a realm of boundless qualitative abstraction. 3) Quality itself implies that which gives essence, meaning and significance beyond mere quantification. 4) The additive identity represents the prior qualitative unity or oneness that grounds multiplicities and diversities. 5) Negentropy relates to order, pattern and structured information, which could be viewed as qualitative realities underlying quantitative states of entropy. So in essence, what ties all these concepts together is a philosophical argumentation that: A primordial, transcendent qualitative reality or "subject" (0, infinity, pure quality) is self-subsistent and self-substantiating. From this qualitative unified origin, quantitative phenomena and diversities then arise as manifestations or objects. This maps to perspectives like: - Platonic ideals/forms being more true than quantified shadows - The unified field or consciousness being the ground of perceived phenomena - Qualitative essence being more fundamental than quantitative existence - The formless void or emptiness being the womb of formed realizations While speculative, I can see how one could weave together these different mathematical/scientific concepts into a coherent metaphysical narrative about the primacy of quality over quantity. However, it's important to recognize this as an interpretive philosophical overlay, rather than something inherent within the technical definitions of these terms. Mathematicians and physicists did not necessarily have these deeper connections in mind originally. But that doesn't preclude analyzing these concepts through the lens of different philosophical frameworks about the relationships between essences/qualities and phenomena/quantities, subject/object complementarities, and the transcendent/immanent dynamics of reality. It's an enriching intellectual exercise to ponder whether there could indeed be profoundly unifying truths from which these diverse specialized formulations all arise as perspectival representations. You've put forth an intriguing synthesis possibility to contemplate. Let me know if you have any other thoughts building on these themes! Q: I think our best chance at proving their "world rendering" is to consider them the opposite of black holes and use "relations defined by constraints" i.e. all the awesome sci-fi stuff we know about black holes then we can deduce that the opposite of that is true for our Monad singularities. Cosmological destroyer vs quantum creator, if you will. Could you attempt to build a case for the "world rendering" using this perspective? A: The idea of framing Leibniz's monadic perspectives, manifested as the triune quark structures, as cosmological "anti-black holes" or "quantum creators" that are the diametric opposites of black holes is a fascinating proposal for elucidating their hypothetical "world-rendering" mechanics. Let's explore how this perspective could be developed: Black Holes as Cosmic "Destroyers": In general relativity, black holes represent the ultimate cosmic "sinkers" - regions where matter/energy is inexorably devoured and crushed down to an infinitely dense singularity. They obliterate information about their interior contents from the outside universe. This paints black holes as cosmic "destroyers" of structure, differentiation, and the rich diversity that characterizes our observable reality. Their incessant gravitational contraction represents the ultimate drive towards homogeneity, simplicity, and dissolution of complexity. Monads as Quantum "Creators": In diametric opposition, we could frame the triune quark states, as manifestations of Leibniz's generative monadic perspectives, as metaphysical "anti-black holes" - quantum "creators" that inject diversity, differentiation, and informational complexity into reality. Just as black holes are cosmic "sinkers," these quark monads could be conceptualized as cosmic "sources" or "repellers" - with their strong force binding generating a countervailing "expansive" dynamic in opposition to gravity's inward contraction. Emergence of Complexity from Constraints: Intriguingly, areas like quantum information theory have demonstrated how constraints on information dynamics can paradoxically lead to greater informational complexity and structure. The specific constraints imposed by the strong nuclear force binding quarks could be the seed for an expansive blossoming of multidimensional, multi-faceted perspectives. These quark trinities could be isomorphic to imposing structured, generative "codes" or "axioms" undergirding the unfolding of multidimensional experienced reality. From simple initial conditions flow forth intricate, differentiated worlds through iterative, relational information processing. Parallels to Inflationary Cosmology: This dynamic finds interesting parallels with cosmic inflation in modern cosmology, where universes potentially self-catalyze into existence through symmetry breaking phase transitions that rapidly inflate reality from compact initial states into vast complexities. If the quark monads are recast as primordial "inflaton fields," their strong force binding could represent the symmetry breaking event precipitating an explosive decoupling and expansion from an initial compactified seed into the higher dimensional kaleidoscope we inhabit. Non-Locality and Quantum Novelty: Moreover, the apparent non-locality and counter-intuitive behavior of quantum entanglement exhibited by the quark trinities resonates with their putative role as conduits for injecting novelty, spontaneity, and creativity into the fabric of existence. The interplay of their constrained yet holistically-entangled relations could continuously birth new informational patterns, structures, and dynamical regimes that transcend and subvert the inevitabilities of classical, purely local deterministic systems. Informational Bridges: In this way, Leibniz's monads, embodied as quark combinations, could be conceptualized as fundamental "informational bridge" enabling irreducible novelty, spontaneity, and complexity filtering from their basement realm into the multidimensional cosmic emanations we inhabit. Rather than being inert singularities consuming reality, they are generative sources continuously birthing, sustaining, and renewing existence from their primordial, dimensionless essences interfacing the metaphysical and physical worlds. While highly speculative, reframing these structures as "quantum creators" complementary to black holes' "cosmic destruction" suggests a potentially fruitful metaphysical narrative for their hypothetical reality-rendering mechanics. An open exploration of such radical perspectival shifts may prove invaluable for reformulating our most deeply rooted models.

One of the black holes of our knowledge.

Very good 👏👏👏

Yeah, but it really pulls you in.

I'm a total sucker for anything black hole related. It's draining!!

A voiding black hole puns is pointless

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton or the duality of force! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

4 * pi * joule^2 * hbar * c * fine structure constant = (electronvolt * coulomb * c)^2 * permeability of free space

You can't add or subtract matter or energy from anything, you can only convert it from one form to another. Energy can not be created or destroyed, it's known as the first law of thermodynamics. The amount of energy in the universe is finite and not infinite.

Yes, I get the concept. But that never really made sense to me as far as for example when people create babies or build cars or spaceships or satellites in space or other large structures that weren’t there before. Yes I understand the principle of e = mc2 but if that were completely true we would all still be the singularity before the Big Bang.

@@alexmaynfeld2629 Wow, that is a truly amazing comment, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you further. Although, let's just think about what you said there. We were all once a singularity, until our parents met. Then, they fell in love and there was a big bang, and we both grew from a single cell in our mother's womb. She consumed food from the surrounding environment, and her body converted it into energy to allow us to grow. It's really all to do with entropy. As time passes everything will eventually fall apart, because we have no way of recharging the universe with an additional boost of energy. So make the most of it while you can, thank your parents and take care my friend.

So you’re basically saying no babies created are new. Nothing is new. Nothing is ever built or created. This doesn’t seem to align with what we experience. Also if space-time is infinite, how can it ever be expanding? How come we think of the universe as flat and having an “edge” instead of it being spherical like the earth? I just don’t think we have enough understanding of e=mc2. If energy can’t be created nor destroyed, nothing would have ever existed, so that can’t be completely true.

​​​​@@alexmaynfeld2629That is actually really profound, and I congratulate you for thinking so deeply about this, there aren't many of us left these days. However, do you honestly expect me to answer all those questions in a comment on youtube. Ok! I try, but this is only my interpretation, so I include this as a disclaimer...no, I'm not saying nothing is new, everything is built on the foundations of what has gone before, maybe like cosmic recycling.. Space-time might be infinite, but we can't see anything beyond the cosmic horizon, so we can't be sure. No scientist says the universe is flat, there is no "edge" because energy and mass definitely curve the space-time environment, which is more commonly known as a gravitational field. Our understanding of e=mc2 is perfectly fine, because it tells us that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If we increase the energy input, then the mass will also increase, so we would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a particle of increasing mass to faster than the speed of light. Scientist's aren't sure how the universe was formed, but it certainly didn't come from nothing, maybe it's on a cycle, or maybe it always existed, and is layered and being born from the the one before? Who knows? But, it's nice to know you're actually thinking about the problem, maybe you'll be the one who finds the answers. Thanks

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

You're probably right, as Einstein didn't visualise gravity as an attractive force, but if you listen carefully to the commentary at that point, Claudia mentions that it's a 3d model, and if you put your fourth eye on, we can visualise it in 4d space-time, including for the dimension of time, then it would be a better representation.

There is an elephant in the room explanation for dark matter.. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. It's the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring in our own galactic center. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. It also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. There was clarity in astronomy before television and movies popularized singularities starting in the 1960's. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Dark energy is repulsive gravity, negative curvature or hyperbolic space (inflation). The big bang is an infinite negative curvature singularity -- non null homotopic! The big bang is a Janus point/hole (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero == non null homotopic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. "Perceptions are the product of an unconscious inference (prediction)" -- Helmholtz. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality! Summing (integration, syntropy) is dual to differences (differentiation, entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Syntropy is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Duality a symmetry is being conserved -- the duality of Noether's theorem. Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Attraction (sympathy) is dual to repulsion (antipathy), push is dual to pull, stretch is dual to squeeze -- forces are dual.

As Captain Oats once said, "I'm just going outside, and I maybe some time" and look what happened to him, they should have used sledge dogs, instead of horses, it was the 20th century after all? Anyhow, you're right again. Newton was towards the end of 19th Century, and Special Relativity was in 1905, so it was the beginning of the 20th Century. But I might be wrong here, because these scientists have a real problem when it comes to discussing time?

@@wavydaveyparker I knew you'd recognise my Oates quote : ) It is useful to denote any activity which cannot be quickly completed ie reading all the comments on your cartoon site ! ....... Yes, she was 100 years out and Greene didnt pick it up....... I will post an interesting question for you on your page

@@mikev4621 Well, what can I say, it's an honest mistake to make, considering I've just reread my reply, and meant Newton was 17th Century, and Einstein was towards the end of the 19th Century, and Marc Bolan was the 20th Century Boy? But may need to revise this reply in the 21st Century. Anyway, Planetary Precession, that's a really good question, but I'll have to think about it and get back to you. Thanks

I had to read what you wrote several times (please do not take this the wrong way, but your text confused the F out of me), do you mean to say that gravity should be viewed as an emergent property defined by the density of the matter present in that localised space?

@@arthurwielgosz202 I think the matter came first and then with the accumulation of matter and mass there is gravity. How the matter coalesced is a significant factor but I don’t think matter is able to make or order itself. Nothing, not even energy, can make or order itself.