DEAR OLD ME:   WHAT IF WE ARE SUCKED INTO A BLACK HOLE AND WE DO NOT COLLAPSE
BECAUSE WE QUANTUM-COLLAPSE (explode) A "BUBBLE" AROUND US by our
quantum consciousness?

THIS "sphere of consciousness" EXPANDS the "terrain" (ie, we are
exploding exceptionally dense black hole matter into what we consider
reality - it implodes again "behind" us) - we are "wormholing" through
the black hole.

Black hole and worm hole are SAME (guess why we never noticed!):

Black/Wormhole is what physicists now think of incorrectly as "spacetime",
really just a mental construct - a concept.. a metaphor.

"Inside" our black hole is an infinite mass which is a "singularity"
only in that it is "located" (is reflected back to us) as what we now
believe a black hole singularity should be.  In fact, that infinite
mass is the universe itself...a finite mass!  It gets better...

A black/wormhole is just highly concentrated matter, raw materials if
you will, that get recycled over and over - a big engine that takes in
matter, strips it down into its constituent components (a sort of
compression/implosion) - but leaving (at least some degree) of
"information" (coherence, or organization, or light) intact enough in
the compressed mass that we perceive it as coming through unscathed,
unchanged when we happen to travel through that matter and
"decompress" it.    Why do I think that?  Because you are reading this.

So, I guess we are (and are not) "in the hole"...

My question?   Well, I have many more, but I guess I'll start with: 

Does doing away with the classical concept of time / space in this
manner hold up mathematically?  The metaphor makes sense to me
intuitively.  It seems like it would fix some problems with
relativity.  It seems like it would explain lots, and lots, of
things....... 50% deflection of light by gravity calculation,
equivalence principles, etc - but, unfortunately, I'm not very good at
math.

I welcome help, improvement, notes telling me that someone thought of
this last tuesday (or that I've just "re-understood" relativity again
for the first time), or, finally, admonitions to begin keeping a
*private* journal with these types of thoughts and to stop troubling
the rest of you..

Thanks!

-todd

---

Clarification of Question by nonattender-ga on 16 Mar 2006 15:19 PST

Yes - right, we are all metaphysicians by birth - I will try to firm
these up, define my terms, but it is so hard to.... take it seriously
because I divide every concept.. I have to "round" the words up or
down as I write (as you were saying), and I'm already aware that
there's a divide by zero operation behind it all.  I have literary
metaphor - if you can turn translate it into math for me (or add to
the literary bits!), please do.  We can keep expanding and contracting
it forever (this is what I think of as being alive) - eventually it
will make sense to you or stop making sense to me, so I'm not worried
about:

----
Gravity = the net effect of quantum consciousness acting to both
EXPLODE and IMPLODE the "same" matter, turning it both into phase
(wave) and out of phase  (particle), depending on, quite literally,
which part of this transaction we choose to be conscious or take
notice of...

  ie, what we perceive as travelling away from us is also travelling towards us
  (not because spacetime is curved, but because the "shape" of our quantum
  sphere of consciousness is statistically very "round" - or at least started
  that way, and intereference from everything we have created, found, come to
  know, encountered, everything that has "interfered" with us, has changed
  and altered IT and US inexorably - at least until we go through the same
  (or similar) physical processes "again" in a gabriel garcia marquez sort of
  way,  and are presented with the raw materials out of which/for which to make
  quantum choices...  the raw materials having information in them which we
  (in some way) recognize as having "left for ourselves to find" - but, at the
  same time, that we recognize as "creating" in the moment, as well.
  
Perception being effected by this matter/energy transaction as a
replacement   metaphor for what we used to call "time"....

Consciousness = the awareness of gravity (the energy exchanging
implosion/explosion)

It used to be that "consciousness" was a way for humans to say
"awareness of being in spacetime".

Does that make sense?  Sure it's a feedback loop.  That's why it seems
to fit so well with my conception of relativity (reality):  that
"possible" and
"impossible" (and all other philosophical concepts) have *necessary*
physical analogues.  That all metaphor has a physical analogue (vice
versa).

As to a black hole not having "infinite mass" - it has infinite
mass-density at the singularity, you say - well, I'm saying the
singularity is constantly exploding and imploding (and so is
everything else) and (certain types of things are sucked in, certain
types of things are pushed out - maybe the pushing out occurs
somewhere else in space!).  If it/all is exploding and imploding,
doesn't it then have infinite mass-density (and, instantly, at the
same "time" as we see it) also a finite mass-density?   This seems to
fit with classical and quantum mechanics, in my head.

Does any of that make sense?  Thanks for your help.

-todd

---

Clarification of Question by nonattender-ga on 16 Mar 2006 16:37 PST

OK!  progress... here's a picture of Nasa's press release from today
that is exactly on point to my metaphor:

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060316/480/ny11603162309;_ylt=As9enO7Fah6O8b_OKHuKIcdxieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-

Let's assume that there are periods where inflation will "appear" to
us (relatively) to be more pronounced, similar to punctuated
equilibrium, this will be phase shifts necessitated by the balance of
finite/infinite (mass/energy) (actuality/possibility).  Let's call
that "relativity".

Let's fill in the missing left side of this chart - by inflating the
right side of this chart up and wrapping it back in on itself (due to:
 at some point it becomes so large so self-interfering, that it wraps
back in on a macro level), sort of like a torus/klein bottle.   (keep
in mind that it is always wrapping back in on itself, always
expanding, fluid in a way - but we're simplifying by using time
references)

Boom.   There we are, in the middle of the big black hole which feeds on itself.
Within this there are maybe 4 main quadrants - delineated by the mean
arcs of the two (quantum/classical) systems constantly
collapsing/exploding into one another.   (quantum/exploding, quantum
imploding) then (classical exploding/classical imploding)

what is it that remains constant through all of these phase shifts?
LIGHT.   not its speed through time, that's not the constant - time
doesn't exist - the constant is LIGHT itself.

-todd

---

Clarification of Question by nonattender-ga on 16 Mar 2006 16:44 PST

So what does that mean as far as math?

(Is the "big bang" what the "perceived" singularity in the middle of
the chart (once you put in the missing left side) is? )

"It seems like it would fix some problems with relativity."

   Hmmm. What would those problems with relativity be?

   I should also stress that everything going on in your mind which
constitutes "understanding" is a metaphor. Models & theories are
metaphors. Numbers are metaphors. Algebra is metaphor. There is no
such thing, for mere mortals, as authentic objective knowledge.
Scientific understanding isn't a pretention of objectivity as much as
it is a rounding up of unanalysed & unjustified chauvinisms, to put
them aside as much as we may be able when asking & answering
questions. What matters in science is whether or not the thing you
propose for understanding is in falsifiable form, so that it's
possible to to test it for definite non-inclusion in a model of
reality.

   So what I mean to say is that calling space-time a metaphor is
redundant, and sheds no light on what it is that you propose. What
matters is if your propositions about the character of the world tell
us reliably & meaningfully what to expect when we observe the world.

   As for the details of your proposal, I generally think that it
doesn't match up well with mainstream theories of things in general.
(For example, a black hole doesn't have infinite mass. If it did then
it'd have an infinitely strong force of gravity at all distances. What
a black hole does have, in classical general relativity, is an
infinite mass-density at the singularity. And even this is probably
not true in a quantum mechanical universe.) This doesn't mean that
it's just plain wrong. But it does mean that you'll need to flesh out
the whole body of your idea in excrutiating detail. The reasoning must
be impeccable. It must be testable, at the very least in principle if
not *yet* in practice. Define all your specialised words in terms of
other, more primitive & agreeable words. At all costs, avoid "word
salad": a hodge-podge of worlds seemingly tossed together at random.
Make everything fit together by necessity, rather than whatever
Freudian conflicts you may be indulging. Although you cannot
ultimately be perfectly objective, try nevertheless to excercise some
balanced perspective.