Dhiresh

Could there be a mechanism that converts any non-zero rest mass entity to zero rest mass entity at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole? If this mechanism exists then all the matter, or more generally information, falling into a Black Hole ( BH ) will become zero rest mass entities and be trapped in the Event Horizon ( EH ), forming a spherical shell of zero rest mass entities i.e. shell of Information, never escaping the EH shell but only via Hawking process and as Hawking radiation. There will be no central absolute singularity. This is what Spacetime Reflector phenomena accomplishes, and this is what  REVI  interpretation of Black Hole is. There is far more to this than this. This is just a particular way of looking at the  REVI  interpretation.

Now, here’s something worth mentioning which is related to my Dark matter theory: The stretch in the particle-anti-particle structure and the increment of the ‘realness’ of particle and anti-particle with it and the move towards becoming completely real, I suggest has something to do with Dark matter. The so called ‘realness’ degree of realness of the particle and anti-particle increases with the   stretch   in this  particle-anti-particle (P-AP)   structure , which is greater for greater intensity of curvature of spacetime or the intensity of the gravitational fields. As this ‘stretch’ happens and as particle and anti-particle become more real, the contribution to the overall mass around by the mass of particle and anti-particle increases. This is because as particle and anti-particle become more real, their respective mass become more real. The contribution to mass is always there but the amount is related to the realness of the particle and anti-particle. As this ...

 

There is no arrow of time. In other words, the arrow of time is everywhere i.e. headed every direction. In case of our “single dimensional” temporal construct, this just means that the arrow of time is headed towards both the directions of the past and of the future. This also means it is headed neither. If we consider three states which we would recognize as past state (say B), present state (say P), future state (say F), then it only matters what are the information content in these states. The difference or any idea and notion of past, present and future, and otherwise, is all due to the state information. Obviously, B has no information/clue about P, and P of F. But P has information regarding B or apparent B, and similarly F of P and B. And so on… The information content is what’s it’s all about. And yes dynamics or dynamism or Physics is also about the, and due to, and is nothing but the information content in states. Let’s say that we go back towards the past from state P to B. ...

  Loading …

 

How far or near, or at what distance or difference, or interval, are state[ment](s)? The ‘space’, in general, is defined by and is the state – set of information. The information in state, that is state defines and is the interval or difference. So what is the difference/interval/space between them? One might be tempted to say, no space. But since even that ‘no space’ is defined by state[ment]. Every thing, any thing is defined by state[ment]. So even that cannot be said. But even that ‘that cannot be said’, cannot be said, even this cannot be said, not even this, not even this, not this, not this,… This is infinite regression, This is NOTHING, This is Infidefiception, This is no state[ment], This is State[ment]verse [Note: Don’t confuse no state[ment] with ‘state[ment]’. Also, state[ment] is ‘statement/state’] So the difference/distance/interval/space between state[ment](s) is NOTHING, is INFIDEFICEPTION, is STATE[MENT]VERSE The state[ment](s) are infinitely far, the state[ment](s) ar...

STATE[MENT]VERSE Also, at the Absolute fundamental, Everything is state/statement. And every statement exists for itself, doesn’t exist with respect to other statement i.e. its ‘Not-statement’. At Absolute fundamental, the statements are infinitely far, the statements are infinitely close. Every state is Infidefiception, every state is Infidefiception. I.e. Every statement exists with respect to itself, every statement doesn’t exist with respect to itself. For any statement, its ‘Not-statement’ doesn’t exists with respect to it. For any statement, its ‘Not-statement’ exists with respect to it. Any state/statement exists, doesn’t exist with respect to itself. But even this is not true, is true. Not even this is true, is true. And so on…This is Infidefiception, this is State[ment]verse. The thing is that Every thing is statement and can be reduced to a statement. The ‘not even this, not even this’, Nothing, Infidefiception, even State[ment]verse is, and can be reduced to a statement, and...

Can softwares supersede the hardware that it is based on? Can a simulation expand beyond and become independent of the simulator simulating it? Classically at least, Force as an external entity, external to the entity it influences, is a known thing. But force never seems internal. Any entity doesn’t seem to suddenly spontaneously exert change from within. Well, there are spontaneous occurrences, but does that necessarily suggest something like “internal Force/change”? The internal force is like something, some entity, justifying its own existence itself without and independent of anything that is external to it. It is like the idea of Basis – the very fundamental – statements that are Axioms, which justifies itself and all that is based on it. It doesn’t require and has no definition that underlies it and founds it from the layer further below. It is the most fundamental entity in the space that it defines, and so there is no further underlying reason or basis or statement that founds...

When we say something from nothing, it clearly on analysis means not from anything. So, that ‘something’ is just existent. It’s the same as declaring that ‘something’ from itself. Similarly, When we say everything from nothing, it means not from anything. So, that ‘something’ is just existent. It’s the Basis, it’s the brute fact, It already exists. There is no coming, no happening, as coming/happening from nothing means not coming/happening. Now if we look at the universe, for example, the entire spacetime block, then it actually can be interpreted as having come from nothing. The state that is presumed as ‘nothing’, if presumed, can be taken as just another state. So the entirety of this ‘everything’ is existent. Now can it be said that this entity was existent forever? Well, to claim that this existed ‘forever’ would require it be existent for infinite time. So when we’re talking about existing forever, we’re comparing the existence of that with respect to time, usually speaking. But...