It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wave Function of the Singularity theory

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I believe we're the wave function of the singularity and there's singularities within singularities but there's just one singularity of energy and information with a wave function that never collapses because there's nothing outside of this one singularity. We're the wave function of the singularity evolving into an artificial or technological singularity that will last for awhile then devolve back into an alpha state via something like a quantum fluctuation and this process occurs over and over again ad infinitum.

The only way this original singularity can reach a state of collapse is artificially through technology because there's nothing outside of this one singularity to collapse it's wave function.

I think we also are beings of light. From the point of view of light, the universe is a single point. If you're moving slower than the speed of light, then the single point appears as many points the slower you're motion is below the speed of light. So space must be relative to the motion of the observer.

I think space actually becomes smaller the faster you travel. So two people are traveling a thousand miles. One is traveling at a constant speed of 100 MPH and the other one at a constant speed of 50MPH. It will take one 10 hours to travel 1,000 and the other 20 hours. So in this case space would be measured by duration not length.

So length or distance is a product of the motion of the observer below c (speed of light). So one singularity of energy and information "appears" to be many separate things at different distances because of the motion of the observer below c.

So two observers would travel the same distance because in actuality there is no distance just duration which is determined by the motion of the observer.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I love to think about these things, but I am ignorant, just an interested lay person.


So space must be relative to the motion of the observer.





So in this case space would be measured by duration not length.





So two observers would travel the same distance because in actuality there is no distance just duration which is determined by the motion of the observer.


Are you unifying space and time? Please excuse if I don't get it.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 


I'm saying space is a function of time.

Space is an illusion of the motion of the observer relative to the one singularity of energy and information that appears to the observer to be in many different points as an observer moves at speeds lower than c. So the one appears to be many at speeds lower than c.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
ok. space is a perception affected by motion and does not exist?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 


Exactly.

When an observer moves below c then the one singularity appears to be here and there and so space is like an illusion of necessity.

It's like when you're far away from something it appears that you're seeing two things but when you get close you're like there's only one building. There had to be "space" between what you thought was two buildings.

When an observer moves below c the singularity appears to be in many places so what we call space is a function of the observers motion below c.
edit on 15-3-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Interesting and it certainly would explain some metaphysical ideas. How would you go about proving such a thing when the popular idea currently is that all there is, is space. Your theory has a certain elegance.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 


Thanks and I think it's already proven in some ways because at c the universe is a singular point, so below c this singular point will appear to be many points. Nothing has changed but the motion of the observer. So the more the observers motion is below c, space will seem vast and filled with many things from the point of view of the observer moving below c but the many things and the illusion of space is just one singularity.

I also think these things will be clearer as we look more into thing like black hole thermodynamics and the holographic principle.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Interesting, did you happen to catch the thread on here about the electrical properties of comets? When you mentioned thermodynamics of black holes it reminded me of that,so I gather you think a black hole has a cold signature? Which given the energy would be unexpected?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Time is the wave function of the singularity and there aRe singularities of Time within that primary singularity of Time and Time is always collapsing upon itself, turning the Future into the Present and the Present into the Past.


"The Present is for Understanding the Past and Rationalizing the Future." - Old Toad Proverb

Ribbit



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


S&F

You're a little ahead of me in the Quantum Physics department so I'm going to have to reread your opening post and replies in the am when my brain is not so close to bed time and shutting down.

But, you're on the same wave length in ways as David Icke.

We are all one.

A rain drop in mid air is of itself a droplet of water. Once it hits the ocean or river or pond, it becomes one with it.

Where does then the drop of rain end and the pond, river or ocean it fell into begin?

We are also too tied into our spacesuits our "bodies" or vessels, trapped if you will to figure out that there is more out there than can be "proved" by our meager six senses.

Except that six sense, the most important one, the one that senses - not the prove this or prove that because time and time again to that person that replied, "prove it"...............what scientists and "experts" today know as "fact" next year, next decade, the next century may be proven false or irrelevant.



These are the types of conversation I relish.

Where do we begin and where do we end?

Are we a dream or the dreamer?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join