## MORPHOLOGICAL

## A Second Pocket Volume of the Universe © A. A. Pépés 2012

My Original book was

A Pocket Volume of the Universe © A. A. Pépés 1998

The originator of a 'Real' model of the Universe.

The ONE that unites them all.

One Needs Everything to incorporate all other models.

Quantum & Classical.

© A. A. Pépés 2012 Representation of many APEs (not to scale)

A Pocket Volume of the Universe © A. A. Pépés 1998

The originator of a 'Real' model of the Universe.

The ONE that unites them all.

One Needs Everything to incorporate all other models.

Quantum & Classical.

© A. A. Pépés 2012 Representation of many APEs (not to scale)

Amendments to eBook

**Addendum extras****I have added an addendum section in which I have added bits to my original eBook so that those who have read my eBook can read and know what I am talking about without the need to purchase any updated eBook. The eBook will be updated to include these addendum sections so any new purchasers will get these with the eBook. As my eBook is meant to be as simplistic and easy to read as possible, I have refrained from putting in a lot of mathematics, please do not be put off by any mathematics that I have subsequently added, as this can be ignored and the eBook still makes sense. The mathematics is just there to help clarify to those that are interested in the next level.****25th June 2013 graphic added to section 44 ‘Magnitude of forces as a function of the curvature of space.’**

23rd June 2013

Further to section 26 ‘The Relevance of Time to Space.’

I just saw a program on Parallel Universes so I thought I would add a small section here.

People and scientists that believe in parallel Universes are the ones that cannot resolve the riddle of "What came first the chicken or the egg?" paradox. Why do I say this?

Am I saying there are no parallel Universes?

Again in my usual way it all depends on what you mean by parallel Universes. Before I answer this I must state that these people probably believe in option 2 of Time in section 26, in which they believe in multiple existences of Time, you can even believe in this option and still not believe in multiple Universes. But if you believe in the more probable option 1 of Time then there is only one "Existance". If there is only one "Existance" then there is no possibility of multiple Universes where every event that has a possible alternative will create another parallel Universe. Because like Time in option 2, every single atom for every fraction of a second will create a parallel Universe, and this will repeat exponentially for every fraction of a second for all of ³Time.

All these possibilities are all possible but for only one existence as in option 1 but these options are not parallel but are sequential i.e. every time the one Universe cycles back to the beginning it can take one of these different possibilities and must cycle back again to take another option; therefore there appears to be an infinite number of cycles of the Universe and at each cycle a slightly different evolution will occur. In this way there will be a ³Time that you will reappear in another cycle of the Universe and make a different choice to the one at this ³Time in this cycle of the Universe.

In all these cycles there is still only one "Existance" and one "Real" Universe.

Now back to the original question, does that mean there are no parallel Universes?

If you are talking about let us say spirits or ghosts and they live in a parallel Universe that does not normally interact with us or in a way that we do not notice; then I say yes this can exist in a simplistic way because it exists in the same ³space as us but at a different density of ³space. If one thinks of this whole ³space as one Universe then it is not really a separate parallel Universe but just another aspect of the same one Universe.

Another note is "Can there be multiple existences of oneself in the one Universe?"

The answer yet again is it depends on how big our Universe is. The larger the Universe is the more likely that there will be copies of you elsewhere in this Universe. By larger I do not mean larger in the sense that the Universe is expanding, but larger in the sense of how big "Existance" is to start with. In this case the probabilities increases because there are more possibilities with increase in numbers of units. Unfortunately although they are exact copies of you (and you can also have similar copies that are not exactly like you) all these copies are not you. This is similar to absolute twins that where exact copies of themselves, although you cannot distinguish between them at any level (even at the atomic level) they are two separate distinct existences and are not the same you.

End 23rd June 2013

23rd June 2013

Further to section 26 ‘The Relevance of Time to Space.’

I just saw a program on Parallel Universes so I thought I would add a small section here.

People and scientists that believe in parallel Universes are the ones that cannot resolve the riddle of "What came first the chicken or the egg?" paradox. Why do I say this?

Am I saying there are no parallel Universes?

Again in my usual way it all depends on what you mean by parallel Universes. Before I answer this I must state that these people probably believe in option 2 of Time in section 26, in which they believe in multiple existences of Time, you can even believe in this option and still not believe in multiple Universes. But if you believe in the more probable option 1 of Time then there is only one "Existance". If there is only one "Existance" then there is no possibility of multiple Universes where every event that has a possible alternative will create another parallel Universe. Because like Time in option 2, every single atom for every fraction of a second will create a parallel Universe, and this will repeat exponentially for every fraction of a second for all of ³Time.

All these possibilities are all possible but for only one existence as in option 1 but these options are not parallel but are sequential i.e. every time the one Universe cycles back to the beginning it can take one of these different possibilities and must cycle back again to take another option; therefore there appears to be an infinite number of cycles of the Universe and at each cycle a slightly different evolution will occur. In this way there will be a ³Time that you will reappear in another cycle of the Universe and make a different choice to the one at this ³Time in this cycle of the Universe.

In all these cycles there is still only one "Existance" and one "Real" Universe.

Now back to the original question, does that mean there are no parallel Universes?

If you are talking about let us say spirits or ghosts and they live in a parallel Universe that does not normally interact with us or in a way that we do not notice; then I say yes this can exist in a simplistic way because it exists in the same ³space as us but at a different density of ³space. If one thinks of this whole ³space as one Universe then it is not really a separate parallel Universe but just another aspect of the same one Universe.

Another note is "Can there be multiple existences of oneself in the one Universe?"

The answer yet again is it depends on how big our Universe is. The larger the Universe is the more likely that there will be copies of you elsewhere in this Universe. By larger I do not mean larger in the sense that the Universe is expanding, but larger in the sense of how big "Existance" is to start with. In this case the probabilities increases because there are more possibilities with increase in numbers of units. Unfortunately although they are exact copies of you (and you can also have similar copies that are not exactly like you) all these copies are not you. This is similar to absolute twins that where exact copies of themselves, although you cannot distinguish between them at any level (even at the atomic level) they are two separate distinct existences and are not the same you.

End 23rd June 2013

**15th June 2013**

**The following sentence is deliberately confusing so that you can think about what I mean by the meaning of words in my eBook.**

The point of points is to distinguish between points so different points mean different things, get the point?

By creating layers and different points you can have multiple dimensions in the same diagram.

By saying a ¹point is different from a ⁰point. Let us define a ¹point as a dimension or dimensions that have the essence of 'Reality' built into them. At this point we do not have to define exactly what this essence is other than to say that if anything has this ¹point missing means the things we are displaying are abstract and are not real.

The ¹point must be multidimensional in its own right because if any dimension that is required to create 'Reality' is missing then this ¹point is also abstract. As we build our dimensions from these ¹points we add attributes at the higher levels to complement these hidden dimensions within these ¹points. Reality (our reality) is always multiple ¹points that create 7 dimensional volumes (or however many dimensions are required to create reality).

I call these ¹points, points of 'Existance' (Different from Existence which has ¹points of 'Existance' within it and ⁰points).

Let me build with these ¹points. Our world (Universe, space) consists of ¹points and ⁰points within volumes of space (existence). First let me add what I consider the missing 5th dimension which is the density of space itself. I.e. the ¹point has a density whereas the ⁰point does not. I will come back to density in a minute. So an abstract line can be a string of ⁰points in a line (abstract one dimension) and superimposed on one of these ⁰points you can have a ¹point, so a one dimensional ‘Real’ ¹point is created (the ¹point on its own is at least a dimension in itself, the dimension of 'Existance'). A few more superimposed ¹points lying along this line creates a two dimensional 'real line' (one dimension for the ¹points themselves and another dimension because they are lined up within a straight line). You will see that these ¹points need not be continuous along the line to exist. If they are close together then the line is more dense at this portion of the line and less dense if the ¹points are further apart. If nothing changes along this line then there is no time. If there is a change along this line then there is a dimension of time (I will come back to time, as there are different times to consider). This line is already 4 dimensional. It has the one space dimension, the dimension of density, one dimension of time and the dimension of 'Existance', remember 'Existance' incorporates anything else that it needs to create reality.). If there are ¹points at right angles to this line then this is a 5 dimensional surface, and any above the surface is a 6 dimensional volume. When you start to move these ¹points you get ? dimensional volumes. Why the ?

This is because time at this low level is different to time at our level. Each space dimension has its own time component. Imagine there was only the normal one dimensional line. Think of just one ¹point along the one dimensional line it can go forwards or backwards in time along the line. Now if there was another dimension at right angles to this I.e. the 2 D plane and there were other ¹points on this surface but not on the line. These ¹points do not have to move with the ¹point on the line, so there would be no time for these ¹points, but there would still be time on the one D line. These ¹points on the surface need 2 dimensions of time to move on the surface (one for each dimension of space) and as you go to the normal 3 D you need 3 dimensions of time. All 3 dimensions of time put together create what I call Secondary ²Time. Our normal time I call Tertiary time or ³Time (sometimes I call it 'Global time'). ³Time is not independent of space but it is an intrinsic part of space created by all the ²Times put together. This is because space itself is quantised and each quantum of space has its own ²Time. Primary ¹Time is 'Existance'. This is actually the quantum itself existing (the 'APE'). I call it the 'APE' to distinguish it from other quanta, because it has characteristics that no other quanta possess. This ¹Time is time before anything changes, you can think of it as zero time I.e. ³Time not moving. It is not the absence of time which I call 'null time or ⁰Time' which is abstract and nothing can exist in it. If no time (⁰Time) then it does not exist, if zero ³Time then it exists and has not moved yet (like freeze frame). You cannot actually freeze time like this because ²Time never stops, so ³Time which is composed of all the times together never stops either (moves forward in the usual way).

All the current models of the Universe and all the laws of physics are currently based on ⁰points in various dimensions on abstract planes, branes manifolds etc. at different scales, don't worry about the names but I believe they are all based on the sphere in different higher dimensions using metrics and fields.

Unfortunately I believe that this causes more problems than are required because it is based on the fact that three dimensional objects are spheres so they consider the surface of a sphere as a two dimensional flat surface on the sphere. (When I say flat it means that any imaginary being that lived on the surface would not know that the surface was curved and would not know the existence of the third dimension above and below them). In my model (explained in another section of my eBook) the sphere is not the fundamental 3 D object but the toroid is. The sphere is at a higher level and is a 7 dimensional object.

What does this mean?

It means that ⁰points are given abstract characteristics trying to explain 'Reality' when they should be explaining the underlying structures of 'Reality'. In a way they are but because they are abstract they have no bounds, so their characteristics are extrapolated into abstract higher dimensions and extrapolated into absurdities. This is why I believe that all physical laws eventually break down at some scale or other because scale is relevant to all physical laws. Time at our scale does not act in the same way as time at the lowest scales, the same with density that has a different characteristic at different levels, the same is true for all the dimensions of space as they are all intrinsically linked together.

All levels need to be more clearly defined so that each law can have its natural limits built in. Let us take Newton’s law of Gravity as an example. Instead of saying it is incorrect because Einstien was more correct. Newton’s assumptions were incorrect because he said something to the effect that there was an ‘instantaneous action at a distance’ and he did not consider relativity at high speeds. What we should do is to say that instantaneous action at a distance is not defined at all levels in his laws of Gravity and that they hold true at certain levels and up to certain speeds. This means you do not need to know the details of this so called instantaneous action at a distance for his laws to be true within their boundaries. Instantaneous action at a distance is not truly instantaneous but it does not matter at his level, This is partly done already and people know its limitations, but this should also be done with Einstein’s curved spacetime where he does not specify the structure that creates this curvature and subsequent Gravity i.e. it does not hold true below a certain level.

Where laws do not apply outside their limits they should not be used to extrapolate into other levels that do not apply to them. e.g. Newton’s laws at or near the speed of light (this is already done) but also Einstein’s curved spacetime should also be defined in the same way as well (not just Einstein but all Laws should). As explained in another section of my eBook Einstein’s curved spacetime is a global curvature where he does not specify the means that this structure takes at the detailed level.

Coming back to ⁰points and the mathematics that goes with them. Let me take Lorentz transformations as an example; as length decreases with increased velocity along the axis. The mathematics just calculates this new length but does not specify how it works. In my model the actual length of the APE actually decreases in length as a structure. Let us say it is moving along on the z axis. It is moving in the medium of other APEs. I think of the medium as having similar characteristics of custard before you cook it, at a certain consistency. If you move slowly in it, it is easy to move through it, the faster you go the harder it becomes. If you hit it with a hammer it is like a solid rock. Anyway as the APE moves along this axis it is compressed against the medium it is traveling through and shrinks in size lengthways and I believe in the x and y plane as well increasing its density as it goes, it does not have to decrease the x and y planes by the same amount so that it looks more like a squashed balloon, the x and y planes are the same relative to themselves. As you increase the speed you are adding more energy to it (more APEs, as APEs are the constituents of energy) in this way you increase the mass which then increases the density even further because of the structure thereby shrinking it even further still. There comes a point where you cannot increase the density any further and it will act like the custard where you can hit it with the hammer and it will not penetrate it. The pushing force will equal the resistive force, think of it a bit like terminal velocity in air. All this is achieved by the structure and the nature of the APEs themselves. As stated in another section of my eBook the mathematics does not specify the nature of 'Realty' but the nature of 'Realty' specifies the mathematics.

So something like E = mc² + pc can be interpreted as two different types of momentum at different levels. The first term is merely the internal complex angular momentum when the APE or APEs are stationary, its Potential energy (this is not an abstract higher dimensional quantity, but actual rotations in space around the ⁰points the ¹points around them at the low level). The second term is merely the momentum of the APEs when they are moving along the z axis at the higher level (this term will include the movements in the x and y planes also around the ⁰point).

As stated I am not a mathematician so I cannot translate the relevant mathematics from my model to the relativistic models that we have at present.

My model can start with something like the following in non relativistic terms

E₀²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc = mc² when stationary.

The ²{1} denotes 1 secondary quantum 1 APE.

¹v = c - ²v therefore when ²v theoretically is zero ¹v = c. Thereby making mc².

By the way the ²v can never become zero because of the structure of the APE and the minimal value is what causes the vacuum energy of space when everything appears to be stationary.

I.e. the dimension of In and Out around the ⁰point, ²v fluctuates (the ¹points) in the x, y and z planes around the ⁰point, this is when the APE is stationary at ⁰point I.e. it is not really stationary in real terms.

Both terms are internal momentum terms at this low level, to include the normal momentum term pc which is a level higher up, you would probably add pc to it, something like

E₀²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc + pc when moving in let us say the z axis, but I do not know how to calculate the pc terms such that it incorporates the additional APEs (that are required to create the pc term) and proper velocities with respect to each other and different observers.

I will leave that to the mathematicians once they understand the concepts of my model.

Another note I see the gamma function of relativity as just one of the shrinking coefficients of the actual structure of the space itself (the APEs). i.e. things are put back to ‘Reality’ and cease to be just abstract.

End 15th June 2013

The point of points is to distinguish between points so different points mean different things, get the point?

By creating layers and different points you can have multiple dimensions in the same diagram.

By saying a ¹point is different from a ⁰point. Let us define a ¹point as a dimension or dimensions that have the essence of 'Reality' built into them. At this point we do not have to define exactly what this essence is other than to say that if anything has this ¹point missing means the things we are displaying are abstract and are not real.

The ¹point must be multidimensional in its own right because if any dimension that is required to create 'Reality' is missing then this ¹point is also abstract. As we build our dimensions from these ¹points we add attributes at the higher levels to complement these hidden dimensions within these ¹points. Reality (our reality) is always multiple ¹points that create 7 dimensional volumes (or however many dimensions are required to create reality).

I call these ¹points, points of 'Existance' (Different from Existence which has ¹points of 'Existance' within it and ⁰points).

Let me build with these ¹points. Our world (Universe, space) consists of ¹points and ⁰points within volumes of space (existence). First let me add what I consider the missing 5th dimension which is the density of space itself. I.e. the ¹point has a density whereas the ⁰point does not. I will come back to density in a minute. So an abstract line can be a string of ⁰points in a line (abstract one dimension) and superimposed on one of these ⁰points you can have a ¹point, so a one dimensional ‘Real’ ¹point is created (the ¹point on its own is at least a dimension in itself, the dimension of 'Existance'). A few more superimposed ¹points lying along this line creates a two dimensional 'real line' (one dimension for the ¹points themselves and another dimension because they are lined up within a straight line). You will see that these ¹points need not be continuous along the line to exist. If they are close together then the line is more dense at this portion of the line and less dense if the ¹points are further apart. If nothing changes along this line then there is no time. If there is a change along this line then there is a dimension of time (I will come back to time, as there are different times to consider). This line is already 4 dimensional. It has the one space dimension, the dimension of density, one dimension of time and the dimension of 'Existance', remember 'Existance' incorporates anything else that it needs to create reality.). If there are ¹points at right angles to this line then this is a 5 dimensional surface, and any above the surface is a 6 dimensional volume. When you start to move these ¹points you get ? dimensional volumes. Why the ?

This is because time at this low level is different to time at our level. Each space dimension has its own time component. Imagine there was only the normal one dimensional line. Think of just one ¹point along the one dimensional line it can go forwards or backwards in time along the line. Now if there was another dimension at right angles to this I.e. the 2 D plane and there were other ¹points on this surface but not on the line. These ¹points do not have to move with the ¹point on the line, so there would be no time for these ¹points, but there would still be time on the one D line. These ¹points on the surface need 2 dimensions of time to move on the surface (one for each dimension of space) and as you go to the normal 3 D you need 3 dimensions of time. All 3 dimensions of time put together create what I call Secondary ²Time. Our normal time I call Tertiary time or ³Time (sometimes I call it 'Global time'). ³Time is not independent of space but it is an intrinsic part of space created by all the ²Times put together. This is because space itself is quantised and each quantum of space has its own ²Time. Primary ¹Time is 'Existance'. This is actually the quantum itself existing (the 'APE'). I call it the 'APE' to distinguish it from other quanta, because it has characteristics that no other quanta possess. This ¹Time is time before anything changes, you can think of it as zero time I.e. ³Time not moving. It is not the absence of time which I call 'null time or ⁰Time' which is abstract and nothing can exist in it. If no time (⁰Time) then it does not exist, if zero ³Time then it exists and has not moved yet (like freeze frame). You cannot actually freeze time like this because ²Time never stops, so ³Time which is composed of all the times together never stops either (moves forward in the usual way).

All the current models of the Universe and all the laws of physics are currently based on ⁰points in various dimensions on abstract planes, branes manifolds etc. at different scales, don't worry about the names but I believe they are all based on the sphere in different higher dimensions using metrics and fields.

Unfortunately I believe that this causes more problems than are required because it is based on the fact that three dimensional objects are spheres so they consider the surface of a sphere as a two dimensional flat surface on the sphere. (When I say flat it means that any imaginary being that lived on the surface would not know that the surface was curved and would not know the existence of the third dimension above and below them). In my model (explained in another section of my eBook) the sphere is not the fundamental 3 D object but the toroid is. The sphere is at a higher level and is a 7 dimensional object.

What does this mean?

It means that ⁰points are given abstract characteristics trying to explain 'Reality' when they should be explaining the underlying structures of 'Reality'. In a way they are but because they are abstract they have no bounds, so their characteristics are extrapolated into abstract higher dimensions and extrapolated into absurdities. This is why I believe that all physical laws eventually break down at some scale or other because scale is relevant to all physical laws. Time at our scale does not act in the same way as time at the lowest scales, the same with density that has a different characteristic at different levels, the same is true for all the dimensions of space as they are all intrinsically linked together.

All levels need to be more clearly defined so that each law can have its natural limits built in. Let us take Newton’s law of Gravity as an example. Instead of saying it is incorrect because Einstien was more correct. Newton’s assumptions were incorrect because he said something to the effect that there was an ‘instantaneous action at a distance’ and he did not consider relativity at high speeds. What we should do is to say that instantaneous action at a distance is not defined at all levels in his laws of Gravity and that they hold true at certain levels and up to certain speeds. This means you do not need to know the details of this so called instantaneous action at a distance for his laws to be true within their boundaries. Instantaneous action at a distance is not truly instantaneous but it does not matter at his level, This is partly done already and people know its limitations, but this should also be done with Einstein’s curved spacetime where he does not specify the structure that creates this curvature and subsequent Gravity i.e. it does not hold true below a certain level.

Where laws do not apply outside their limits they should not be used to extrapolate into other levels that do not apply to them. e.g. Newton’s laws at or near the speed of light (this is already done) but also Einstein’s curved spacetime should also be defined in the same way as well (not just Einstein but all Laws should). As explained in another section of my eBook Einstein’s curved spacetime is a global curvature where he does not specify the means that this structure takes at the detailed level.

Coming back to ⁰points and the mathematics that goes with them. Let me take Lorentz transformations as an example; as length decreases with increased velocity along the axis. The mathematics just calculates this new length but does not specify how it works. In my model the actual length of the APE actually decreases in length as a structure. Let us say it is moving along on the z axis. It is moving in the medium of other APEs. I think of the medium as having similar characteristics of custard before you cook it, at a certain consistency. If you move slowly in it, it is easy to move through it, the faster you go the harder it becomes. If you hit it with a hammer it is like a solid rock. Anyway as the APE moves along this axis it is compressed against the medium it is traveling through and shrinks in size lengthways and I believe in the x and y plane as well increasing its density as it goes, it does not have to decrease the x and y planes by the same amount so that it looks more like a squashed balloon, the x and y planes are the same relative to themselves. As you increase the speed you are adding more energy to it (more APEs, as APEs are the constituents of energy) in this way you increase the mass which then increases the density even further because of the structure thereby shrinking it even further still. There comes a point where you cannot increase the density any further and it will act like the custard where you can hit it with the hammer and it will not penetrate it. The pushing force will equal the resistive force, think of it a bit like terminal velocity in air. All this is achieved by the structure and the nature of the APEs themselves. As stated in another section of my eBook the mathematics does not specify the nature of 'Realty' but the nature of 'Realty' specifies the mathematics.

So something like E = mc² + pc can be interpreted as two different types of momentum at different levels. The first term is merely the internal complex angular momentum when the APE or APEs are stationary, its Potential energy (this is not an abstract higher dimensional quantity, but actual rotations in space around the ⁰points the ¹points around them at the low level). The second term is merely the momentum of the APEs when they are moving along the z axis at the higher level (this term will include the movements in the x and y planes also around the ⁰point).

As stated I am not a mathematician so I cannot translate the relevant mathematics from my model to the relativistic models that we have at present.

My model can start with something like the following in non relativistic terms

E₀²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc = mc² when stationary.

The ²{1} denotes 1 secondary quantum 1 APE.

¹v = c - ²v therefore when ²v theoretically is zero ¹v = c. Thereby making mc².

By the way the ²v can never become zero because of the structure of the APE and the minimal value is what causes the vacuum energy of space when everything appears to be stationary.

I.e. the dimension of In and Out around the ⁰point, ²v fluctuates (the ¹points) in the x, y and z planes around the ⁰point, this is when the APE is stationary at ⁰point I.e. it is not really stationary in real terms.

Both terms are internal momentum terms at this low level, to include the normal momentum term pc which is a level higher up, you would probably add pc to it, something like

E₀²{1} = m.¹vc + m.²vc + pc when moving in let us say the z axis, but I do not know how to calculate the pc terms such that it incorporates the additional APEs (that are required to create the pc term) and proper velocities with respect to each other and different observers.

I will leave that to the mathematicians once they understand the concepts of my model.

Another note I see the gamma function of relativity as just one of the shrinking coefficients of the actual structure of the space itself (the APEs). i.e. things are put back to ‘Reality’ and cease to be just abstract.

End 15th June 2013

**28th May 2013**

If you like you can think of 1points as being in a different dimension to ⁰points. So the movements of ¹points are dimensions of space that you do not see that effect the ⁰points at these higher dimensions of space. In other words when stationary at ⁰point it has what first appears as 6 dimensions, one dimension for above the point, one below the point and similarly one for each front and back and left and right. The reason that there are 6 dimensions and not just the normal 3 is that the object at ⁰point can go up and down at the same time, the same for the others as well, but when you realise that the structure of this space has two points above and two points below and again the same for the other options you end up with 12 dimensions when stationary.

Then as before when this ⁰point moves translationally in any direction (let us say the z axis) you have to add the translational component to each of the 12 so making 24 dimensions? This does not incorporate all the dimensions of Time and density, which not being a mathematician I do not as yet know how to express mathematically.

End 28th May 2013

If you like you can think of 1points as being in a different dimension to ⁰points. So the movements of ¹points are dimensions of space that you do not see that effect the ⁰points at these higher dimensions of space. In other words when stationary at ⁰point it has what first appears as 6 dimensions, one dimension for above the point, one below the point and similarly one for each front and back and left and right. The reason that there are 6 dimensions and not just the normal 3 is that the object at ⁰point can go up and down at the same time, the same for the others as well, but when you realise that the structure of this space has two points above and two points below and again the same for the other options you end up with 12 dimensions when stationary.

Then as before when this ⁰point moves translationally in any direction (let us say the z axis) you have to add the translational component to each of the 12 so making 24 dimensions? This does not incorporate all the dimensions of Time and density, which not being a mathematician I do not as yet know how to express mathematically.

End 28th May 2013

**19th May 2013**

**I have just quickly reviewed String Theory & M theory lectures from Leonard Susskind Stanford University on iTunes U released 2010-2011. It seems that I am going to have to learn some more mathematics or get some serious mathematician to help me specify my model more completely.**

I think my unrestricted model of the universe (which this eBook does not cover) is more like some form of string theory but much more sophisticated than any other string theory. All current string theories only have one time dimension and the rest are space dimensions (they still seem to have many paradoxes).

My theory has 3 levels of Time and using their interpretation of dimensions mine has at least 24 ‘Real’ dimensions (I will explain in a bit).

These dimensions are there all the time at all scales but are more significant at lower scales. These movements can be imagined as vibrations in all directions around this imaginary center 0point. So as an example if you look at the atomic scale of the atom and look at just one dimension; it may appear to jump 100% from left to 100% right of this 0point. Now if we go up a scale to molecular levels (macromolecular) all the atoms in this molecule are still jumping about but the whole molecule now only jumps a few % from left to right of its imaginary center 0point. Again as we go into even higher levels these jumps or vibrations will be fractions of 1% shifts which you will not detect at these higher scales. The Uncertainty Principle is explained in my model by these additional dimensions which live at ‘Real’ 1points outside these imaginary 0points. This is why you cannot extrapolate into the macroscopic world Schrodinger’s cat (it is either dead or alive irrespective of whether you observe it). The uncertainty only applies to scales below the ‘APE’ where you are not measuring ‘Real’ entities but abstractions.

They have one string theory that has 26 dimensions in which they have no clue as to any ‘Real’ model into which these space dimensions can exist. They use what they call ‘compactification of dimensions’ to hide these dimensions. Now although I have not seen the mathematics behind this model (not that I would understand it at the moment, even if I had) they classify a dimension as a degree of freedom in space that the particle can travel in space time. Using my model I interpret this as giving these properties of the whole quantum to the imaginary center 0Point (as if it is a particle). Particles as such do not exist. These properties belong to the whole quantum ‘APE’ which exists as ‘Real’ 1Points and these 1Points move in ‘Real’ space in 12 different directions in 2Time when stationary around this imaginary 0Point. When it moves in any of the macroscopic directions in the normal 3D of 0space in 3Time it creates 12 more variables (1 for each dimension) i.e. it has a component shift in all these 12 dimensions therefore it will have 24 dimensions in which to move. If you add the additional missing 5th Dimension plus other variables in my model everything is ‘Real’ and there are no hidden dimensions.

These dimensions are explained by the dimension I call the ‘In and Out’ dimensions independent of movement in normal 3D 0space. All these dimensions they give to their imaginary 0Point so this whole affair of additional hidden dimensions then becomes totally abstract (it was always abstract to start with as soon as you summed the properties of objects to point particles, which do not exist).

It gets even more bazaar with branes.

They seem to use different ‘metrics’ for different types of space (I will have to study to learn the notation), but they all seem to have a positive space component and a negative time component. My instincts tell me that this negative time component is just the contraction of space in translational motion which in my model will again be explained by the ‘In Out’ dimensions and 2Time e.g. Lorentz transformations.

[In addition I will have to explain the force of Gravity using my model which is proportional to the cross sectional area of the ‘APE’ which is proportional to lp2 which is also an area. lp which is a length is proportional to my radius of the ‘APE’ the ‘Real’ length of the ‘APE’ is its circumference.

In their model strings can be any length (total length L) and can break and join using the coupling constant g.

In my restricted model the actual strings are not broken but form links and overlaps to create larger structures. The mass is proportional to the number of ‘APE’s.

Also black hole Entropy in my model is not on the horizon of the sphere but proportional to the cross sectional area of the black hole which is proportional to the sum total of the cross sectional areas of the ‘APE’s inside the black hole which is embedded in the black hole.

End 19th May 2013

16th May 2013

I think my unrestricted model of the universe (which this eBook does not cover) is more like some form of string theory but much more sophisticated than any other string theory. All current string theories only have one time dimension and the rest are space dimensions (they still seem to have many paradoxes).

My theory has 3 levels of Time and using their interpretation of dimensions mine has at least 24 ‘Real’ dimensions (I will explain in a bit).

These dimensions are there all the time at all scales but are more significant at lower scales. These movements can be imagined as vibrations in all directions around this imaginary center 0point. So as an example if you look at the atomic scale of the atom and look at just one dimension; it may appear to jump 100% from left to 100% right of this 0point. Now if we go up a scale to molecular levels (macromolecular) all the atoms in this molecule are still jumping about but the whole molecule now only jumps a few % from left to right of its imaginary center 0point. Again as we go into even higher levels these jumps or vibrations will be fractions of 1% shifts which you will not detect at these higher scales. The Uncertainty Principle is explained in my model by these additional dimensions which live at ‘Real’ 1points outside these imaginary 0points. This is why you cannot extrapolate into the macroscopic world Schrodinger’s cat (it is either dead or alive irrespective of whether you observe it). The uncertainty only applies to scales below the ‘APE’ where you are not measuring ‘Real’ entities but abstractions.

They have one string theory that has 26 dimensions in which they have no clue as to any ‘Real’ model into which these space dimensions can exist. They use what they call ‘compactification of dimensions’ to hide these dimensions. Now although I have not seen the mathematics behind this model (not that I would understand it at the moment, even if I had) they classify a dimension as a degree of freedom in space that the particle can travel in space time. Using my model I interpret this as giving these properties of the whole quantum to the imaginary center 0Point (as if it is a particle). Particles as such do not exist. These properties belong to the whole quantum ‘APE’ which exists as ‘Real’ 1Points and these 1Points move in ‘Real’ space in 12 different directions in 2Time when stationary around this imaginary 0Point. When it moves in any of the macroscopic directions in the normal 3D of 0space in 3Time it creates 12 more variables (1 for each dimension) i.e. it has a component shift in all these 12 dimensions therefore it will have 24 dimensions in which to move. If you add the additional missing 5th Dimension plus other variables in my model everything is ‘Real’ and there are no hidden dimensions.

These dimensions are explained by the dimension I call the ‘In and Out’ dimensions independent of movement in normal 3D 0space. All these dimensions they give to their imaginary 0Point so this whole affair of additional hidden dimensions then becomes totally abstract (it was always abstract to start with as soon as you summed the properties of objects to point particles, which do not exist).

It gets even more bazaar with branes.

They seem to use different ‘metrics’ for different types of space (I will have to study to learn the notation), but they all seem to have a positive space component and a negative time component. My instincts tell me that this negative time component is just the contraction of space in translational motion which in my model will again be explained by the ‘In Out’ dimensions and 2Time e.g. Lorentz transformations.

[In addition I will have to explain the force of Gravity using my model which is proportional to the cross sectional area of the ‘APE’ which is proportional to lp2 which is also an area. lp which is a length is proportional to my radius of the ‘APE’ the ‘Real’ length of the ‘APE’ is its circumference.

In their model strings can be any length (total length L) and can break and join using the coupling constant g.

In my restricted model the actual strings are not broken but form links and overlaps to create larger structures. The mass is proportional to the number of ‘APE’s.

Also black hole Entropy in my model is not on the horizon of the sphere but proportional to the cross sectional area of the black hole which is proportional to the sum total of the cross sectional areas of the ‘APE’s inside the black hole which is embedded in the black hole.

End 19th May 2013

16th May 2013

**I have today decided to go through my eBook and add the prefixed superscripts to the different levels of Time, Space and any other relevant point or volume.**

This is to better distinguish between 'Primary Time', 'Secondary Time' and 'Tertiary Time' or Global normal time, plus the different levels of space etc.

Because I know what I am talking about I actually think it is better reading without these superscripts but feel that it maybe more understandable with the superscripts in place, so there is no confusion that there are different components to time. Where ever you see superscripts 0 denotes abstract or null, 1 denotes Primary, 2 Secondary and 3 Tertiary.

This is to better distinguish between 'Primary Time', 'Secondary Time' and 'Tertiary Time' or Global normal time, plus the different levels of space etc.

Because I know what I am talking about I actually think it is better reading without these superscripts but feel that it maybe more understandable with the superscripts in place, so there is no confusion that there are different components to time. Where ever you see superscripts 0 denotes abstract or null, 1 denotes Primary, 2 Secondary and 3 Tertiary.

eBook bargain now only £2.53 or free |

Legal. Everyone seems to have a legal section with writing you can't read so I added mine. Don't do anything that may end up in litigation I take no responsibility for your beliefs or actions. So if you don't like my site or anything I say just ignore it. Make up your own mind and don't blame me.