>Spend 1 year orbiting a black hole, come back to earth and

The second paragraph should be quoted.

I should mention that the universe is not infinite and it has a birth and death date.

Another very important thing to mention in relation to particles traveling >c accelerating. Space-time exists like fluid, so fluid dynamics generally apply to how the universe behaves. Pressure increases as the particle moves >c so it keeps accelerating in speed and pressure until it no longer exists. This is technically instantaneous, but all energy is connected through this fluid, so each state of each photon is accounted for at some frequency >c and equal to the pressure of Om at that time.

There is no scientific phrasing for the frequency of the calculated universe. It's Pi, but that's very nondescript. Everything about the universe is pi, really. Functionally. So, Om will do.

The tuning of Om changes throughout the procession of matter through space-time. As time accelerates, the frequency increases 1 decimal point higher per place of Pi. Pi, like the universe, is finite, albeit indescribably big.

In recorded history, an interesting note is that tuning forks used to tune middle C on a piano changed in frequency over the years. Middle C used to be about one and a half steps lower if I recall correctly. It varied around the globe as well. Gravity affects perception of Om.

As conscious minds, we can perceive gravity's effects on Om because it's all we really know. From the moment you gain senses, you are interpreting gravity's manipulation of everything around you. You begin to associate and logically favor yourself over everything. You learn to manipulate gravity's effects by picking things up and putting them down, speaking to other humans, etc...

This same concept applies to all knowledge.

"Gravity is showing me (this.)"

Through everything, though, there is a resonance, and a constant. That is Om. There is no spiritual element to actual Om. It's just the way energy works. We're technically all connected through it, but you'd have to be very focused on someone to notice distinct changes in Om when they're around.

>>18367603
Is that supposed to be a shape that's impossible in 3-dimensions, but possible in 4?

>>18367636
It's both. This shape describes the nature of the universe, but doesn't necessarily represent it. I can't wait to work with the guy who's going to help me model it on a computer. These measurements are extremely precise.

>>18367603
can you explain what that picture is supposed to represent?

>>18367679
I'm really not allowed to go into details yet. I'm new to this, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to, either.

I can say vaguely that it is a "lego" of the universe. There are a nearly infinite number of these things creating everything that exists.

I named them pips, and everyone seems to like that name, so it may or may not stick.

>>18367694
Thanks. I don't fully grasp what you are explaining, but the way you describe the universe is similar to my model. Check out the E8 model if you haven't already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything

>>18367728
I have the E8 page bookmarked from a previous encounter. Numbers are undoubtedly my weak point, as I only recently became inspired to do work in this field.

I'm much better at the conceptual part of science.

E8 is very similar, but it's missing a very important component of a physical property of the universe. I'm not allowed to talk about the difference until certain names are on paper.

sleeping. this information won't be public for potentially a couple years. optimistically, less than a year.

so, if you're curious but not willing to believe a stranger, give it some time.

>>18367603

I'm the fag this post is referring to.

Once again you have proven you have no idea what time dilation is so I'm still calling you out on being a role player. And not even a physicist by any means.

If you and I are both holding an atomic clock, and you stay on earth and I go out and do any of the things I listed then when I come back my clocks reading is going to be significantly less then your clocks. It has nothing to do with perception.

This is time travel, this is physics as we know it, this has been scientifically tested and proven.

>>18367745
I understand your concern on secrecy, I am working on a publication myself too. Not sure what the missing component is for you, but for me its perception. Without the subjective experience, physics only describes the structure in which the universe is perceived. The problem is once you start matching the structure, it maps to pretty much any explanation or model that is self consistent, yet never complete. Its why any abstract concept in physics, or all science for that matter, can be described quite simply in analogies of everyday phenomena we observe around us, yet there is never one analogy that can describe all. I managed to even get down to working out multiple configurations of basic arithmetic operators that are consistent with all known math, yes its never a self complete set. I am leaning towards the multiple universe hypo because of this, however maybe you might break through. Good luck..

>>18367770
Why does it not have to do with perception? its basically a way of saying frame of reference.

>>18367772
Perception is something I'm allowed to talk about because it's not special to the theory we're proving right now. Each one of those shapes has a unique P-pip for perspective, and it's not limited to 3 dimensions :)

The other component is very, very hard to tell the public with a straight face. It's almost like telling people their life is a lie. I anticipate all the time what I'll say if I'm ever interviewed about this.

The time can't come soon enough for us to begin field work.

>>18367776

Because a clock doesn't perceive anything. I can perceive the numbers on the clock, but the numbers are legit.

>>18367772
I somehow missed your last sentence. Would you mind elaborating a little bit on the arithmetic operators? It sounds curious and could be related to our current research.

>>18367781
sure, it doesn't 'perceive' as in with eyes and a brain, but its still perceived as long as its talked about in the context where we are describing objects relative to each other

>>18367790
The mind you're picking from is ignorant and toxic. I suggest you let this go.

I know that's very hard on this website.

>>18367782
Its just Godels theorem at a conceptual arithmetic level. You can switch around the operators or flip functions around based on the existing structure and create sets that match up to explaining anything perfectly, and there are many of these sets as well, but they still will not be complete sets.

>>18367799
Oh, I see. Thank you.

The symmetry of the universe is truly incredible. There is going to be piles of new information to add to Godel's. When I say piles, I mean twice-over.

>>18367805
>symmetry of the universe
I truely believe in this as well. Check out Max Tegmarks work on Godels theorem if you haven't, its pretty neat. Good luck!