"The straight line of time becomes a curved one too. If space is curved, so does time."

So if time is curved, then based on Euclidean geometry, you can create a straight line, which connects two adequately distanced points on the curvature. Do you therefore posit that time travel may be possible?

"Curvature can be defined only for the space between two different points. A point has no curvature."

Traditionally, a single point only has coordinates, it has no spatial dimensions, so it's obvious that it cannot have curvature.

" If you imagine two different points on the timeline (an imaginary line) and put a clock on each point, then the curvature of time is the difference in timerate of the two clocks. If the two clocks show no difference, time is flat, "

A 'timeline' by definition of 'line' would be linear, 1 dimension. So a line of past, future and present time. Such a line would therefore BE time. It makes no sense to put clocks on it. You can simply read the time from the line. It cannot be a timeline if it does not already contain that information.

"flat, like space is"

This is not fully established yet, as you yourself confirm with "If space is straight, flat,"

"there is no difference between subsequent intervals mdx (corresponding to the rates of the clock on different mdt on the timeline). The m is called the metric on the spacetime".If the metric is constant there is no curvature."

Should be able to obtain this metric by just reading the data from your imaginary timeline at regular intervals or perhaps we can call them 'past intervals' and/or 'future intervals' depending where 'the present' is established on your timeline......perhaps time is not linear.


"Mass curves spacetime,"

Is 'curves' the same as 'warps?'

"induces a metric (which are the m's arranged in a symmetric 4x4 matrix, which is usually a diagonal matrix with elements on the diagonal only but sometimes contains off diagonal elements giving rise to a torsion of space, like frame dragging),"

Is this still valid if string theories extra spatial dimensions exist?

" and instead of moving through flat spacetime around mass and under the influence of a force, as happens according to Newton (and even with an instantaneous action...), a mass just follows the curvature, just as in flat spacetime it travels straight."

Still so much to do. If space is curved. how does it curve? Is it a great big sphere? Is it a big Calabi-Yau manifold, within which, every co-ordinate triple(which I prefer to 'point') is a Calabi-Yau manifold?

"Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet
— universeness"

Still seems pretty accurate to me.

"The problem, at the same the true kicker, is knowing it. Once you see it, it all seems so obvious."

If it's obvious to you then please publish your paper containing your equations and proofs, so that it can be peer-reviewed, before Thanatos and Hypnos do you any mischief from their faraway hiding place.

To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one"

So if time is curved, then based on Euclidean geometry, you can create a straight line, which connects two adequately distanced points on the curvature. Do you therefore posit that time travel may be possible? — universeness

Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic.

A 'timeline' by definition of 'line' would be linear, 1 dimension. So a line of past, future and present time. Such a line would therefore BE time. It makes no sense to put clocks on it. You can simply read the time from the line. It cannot be a timeline if it does not already contain that information — universeness

The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary.

flat, like space is" — universeness

You pulled something out of context here. Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite. Measurements show that global space is closed.

Should be able to obtain this metric by just reading the data from your imaginary timeline at regular intervals or perhaps we can call them 'past intervals' and/or 'future intervals' depending where 'the present' is established on your timeline......perhaps time is not linear. — universeness

Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space. The time curvature is imaginary though.

Is this still valid if string theories extra spatial dimensions exist? — universeness

Yes. The matrix will be larger then, like the 5x5 metric in Kaluza Klein theory. KK offers room for U(1) only. String theory offers room for the two other gauge symmetries (on the Calabi-Yau manifold).

Is 'curves' the same as 'warps — universeness

Yes.

If it's obvious to you then please publish your paper containing your equations and proofs, so that it can be peer-reviewed, before Thanatos and Hypnos do you any mischief from their faraway hiding place. — universeness

I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.

I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense.

To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got — universeness

That's his asshole talking... :wink:

Yeah, so we just don't know enough yet
— universeness"

Still seems pretty accurate to me. — universeness

It depends on who you mean with we. I know though...

That definition is wanting in many respects. It doesn't, for example, say anything useful i.e. it merely states what's obvious. As for your request to tell you what you'r missing, I regret to inform you that I can't comply, for obvious reasons. — Agent Smith

It's not obvious, or else I wouldn't have asked in the first place. What use are you hoping to get from a definition other than the way some word is used to refer to some (obvious) state-of-affairs?

"Curved space by definition is not Euclidean. The straight line in curved space is geodetic."

My command of Astrophysics and physics is way below yours. My qualifications are mainly in computer science. Since retirement, I have toe-in-the-water qualifications, based on online internet courses on cosmology and my own reading. I am not expecting too many teaching points from you as I recognise the frustrations, that can be involved in having to repeat academic points to each new individual encountered or many times to the same individual before understanding is achieved. I was a secondary school teacher for 26 years, so I am familiar with such frustration. I am of course, willing to do my own work but I always appreciate time and effort savers.
I understand a geodesic is a straight line between two points on a curved surface but my question remains, if time is curved then do you posit that time travel is possible?


"The line is curved because the clocks on it tick at different rates. The metric on the axis varies. There are no perfect clocks, so the timeline is an imaginary."

I understand that your scenario here is imaginary (a thought experiment) but another thought experiment:
if a clock was placed in free space (not orbiting anything) and not in motion, relative to a second clock which passes the first one at a speed close to light (or a significant portion of light speed) in a parallel straight line path, perpendicular to the first clock, then they would tick at different rates but there are no curves involved. If I place both clocks, next to each other, on the same straight line in space and accelerate the second one away from the first, maintaining a straight line path, the clocks would tick at different rates as clock 2 is accelerated more and more. Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?

"Flat spacers claim global space is flat and thus infinite."

Well If 'flat spacers' claim that detectable (I dont like the use of the term global here and I'm not mad about 'observable universe/space') space is flat, then I dont see how they make the jump to 'infinite.'

"Measurements show that global space is closed."

I understand k= 1,0 or -1 from the Friedmann equations. Below is a quote from wikipedia:

The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. On the other hand, any non-zero curvature is possible for a sufficiently large curved universe (analogously to how a small portion of a sphere can look flat). Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the four-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice).

I assume this is the area of your work you are referring to and that you disagree with the current evidence but then the obvious question becomes which measurements are you referring to?


"Reading the data means reading clocks at different positions. If they show different rates, time is curved as well as space."

Still dont see why this follows based on what I typed earlier.

"The time curvature is imaginary though."

Why is it imaginary? Time is either linear (past, present, future) or its not, it's curved (time travel then would be possible if you can access/traverse the 'inner sphere/hyperbolic' of time), or its multidimensional and the wormhole aliens of Deep Space Nine become more plausible.

"I'm working on it. Up till now, there is only resistance, because I attack the orthodoxy. Only proposing that there are only two basic fields of matter is looked at in frown, let alone assuming a spatially 7d substrate with 3 curled up dimensions on which two 3d universes appear at recurring big bangs.
I'm writing my story in a book. Sells better. "The Dark Solution". I have a whole list of titles.
Up till now, nobody offered any good criticism. Apart from the remark that I basically repeat KK theory, which is nonsense."

Fair enough!

"That's his asshole talking..."

I wouldn't mess with big Clint, he is liable to give you a new opportunity for espousing multiple opinions at the same time by 'tearing you a new one.'

So why the stupid comment, that you believe in Thanatos and Hypnos. I like humour but I have enough hassle dealing with the irrational theists and other fantasists, without having to waste my time answering, windup comments from those who seem completely rational. Unless you really do have some disfunctional cogs in your head.

"It depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."

I mean me, myself and I.

Since retirement, — universeness

You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!

Why is it imaginary? Time is either linear (past, present, future) or its not, it's curved (time travel then would be possible if you can access/traverse the 'inner sphere/hyperbolic' of time), or its multidimensional and the wormhole aliens of Deep Space Nine become more plausible — universeness

Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary.

I wouldn't mess with big Clint, he is liable to give you a new opportunity for espousing multiple opinions at the same time by 'tearing you a new one.' — universeness

I won't mess again with the big C! As long as he keeps his ass shut!

So why the stupid comment, that you believe in Thanatos and Hypnos. I like humour but I have enough hassle dealing with the irrational theists and other fantasists, without having to waste my time answering, windup comments from those who seem completely rational. Unless you really do have some disfunctional cogs in your head. — universeness

I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!

depends on who you mean with me. I know though..." — universeness

My fault! I meant we...

"You appear to be young and wild! The internet can deceive! It's a compliment!"

Aw, Thanks Raymond, maybe young and wild at heart but no, an auld 57-year-old, Scotsman!


"Ah, yes. I misunderstood linear. A future and past indeed. I meant that the very concept of clock is imaginary. No real periodic reversible motion exists. All periods vary. Only at the big bang such a motion existed. But there were no irreversible processes to measure with this clock! Time as an irreversible process is real. The clock is imaginary."

Ok, I note what you have texted here but will you not admit that what you say here is opinion, not fact, you can back it up with some evidence but current evidence in this area, is not conclusive (in my opinion) and your impressive knowledge of physics surely compels you to clearly declare and separate opinion from that which you are willing to present as scientific fact or as close as you can get to it using rigor and empirical evidence. I appreciate this forum is not scientific and welcomes opinion, but I just mean it's important to separate your opinions from your convictions and even more importantly, from that which YOU consider TRUTH and are willing to apply maximum effort to defend, in some cases, with your life!

"I don't believe in them. And if there I give them the finger!"

Hallelujah Brother, and that's from an Athiest.
I have no problem with a person who has a religious faith that gives them great comfort and is important to their life. I will tell such people I am an atheist but I would be an ass if I tried to tear down something which was the basis of their morality and their sense of security and well-being.
If I ever do that with malicious intent, then I hope I pay a price because that would be fair justice. All I ask is that they dont preach to me. Dialogue, debate, conversation on the topic, even heated or emotionally driven is ok but as soon as any form of real, personal anger raises itself from my side or the other, I will stop! back away etc. Unless it has already went beyond such opportunities and you are under physical attack, then I have no choice but try my best to defend.

You offered no response to two points I think are important :
I gave you a 'thought experiment' scenario and then asked
Why would the clocks ticking at different rates indicate curved space?

I typed about the Friedmann equations and copied a section from a wikipedia page about the shape of the universe. I then asked you which measurements you were referring to with:

"Measurements show that global space is closed."

I think it's important to respond to these points but of course, you are not compelled to do so.


I think I was a bit slow on the uptake with your :

"depends on who you mean with me. I know though..."

and my response of 'Me Myself and I'

I now get what you were saying. I now think you were asking me, who was I talking about when I said
'Yeah, we just don't know enough yet.' You were asking me who are the 'we' I was referring to?
Sorry I was a bit 'doh!' there.

Well yes, I would certainly fit into that category but only as a representative of the majority of people.

When you type 'I know though....', I now think that you are suggesting that you know the structure, origin and shape of the universe. If that's the case, then the more important 'we' I was referring to, would have been better as a 'they' and they are the current representatives of the cosmology world. The ones we see regularly on our TV screens and on the internet, who all say 'we just don't know yet', on so many astrophysical issues, including the shape and quantum structure of the Universe. Individuals such as Laurence Krauss, Ed Witten, Brian Green, Roger Penrose, Neil De-Grasse Tyson and many others. You have offered nothing so far which suggests you know better than they do (only in my humble opinion of course.)

One final point.

I would place the two clocks, in my thought experiment scenario in intergalactic space, between galaxies, no gravitational effects, hopefully.

Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail. A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back. I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there. I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them.

About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones) are not there. This means the universe was and is closed.

What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks.

"Okay Scotsman! Let's set the boat assail."

Good, strong words, I like them. I would guess you are American, but no matter, good strong words in any nationality. We are all Earther's

"A small flurry of depression hit me. I simply roar back."
Carl Sagan's books, I think it was 'The Dragons of Eden' or 'Broca's Brain'. He discusses the brain as a triune system (the R-complex, the Limbic system and the cortex). Three brains really or three interconnected systems. He also discusses the left and right hemispheres of the cortex, the corpus callosum between them as the com channels etc. He describes a good level of detail about how it all works together. Such books gave me a better understanding of states like depression, small and long lasting. But yes, you are spot on. The choice is to fight back and chase such away or suffer. The more times you win the more resistance you build. I look to the Neuroscientists like Sam Harris to help me further with such issues. I don't need god or faith in anything supernatural to deal with the pressures of being me and being human and just BEING. I am convinced no-one else needs the god crutch either, if rationalise their life.

" I don't believe in gods which doesn't mean they are not there."
Good, I am perhaps just more convinced than you, that they, or just IT, is not there, but I also cannot prove gods do not exist, no-one can and it's unlikely that anyone ever will be able to. But no-one needs to, I am happy to let the idea fade away. It's others who keep it alive. I used to like the phrase
'Hell is other people', I probably still do but it is certainly misanthropic and too harsh.

"But I can't answer the very last question. Where it all came from. Even if the universe is infinite spatiotemporally, which I think it is, and even if there is an all-explaining theory (well, not all obviously, but the cosmological story), which I think I have, then still, where does it all come from? You can ask the same about gods, but at least then it comes from something alive. I think though they don't want me to bow at them."

Again, no-one can, so you are in the company of the population of the entire planet and all who have gone before and probably all who are yet to arrive, so why take the stress/burden personally.
These issues niggle at people all through their lives no matter how many times you try to 'close' them, as an individual. The niggles will always return and in countless variety.
I personally think that its because, deep somewhere in the triune brain is the niggle that WE MUST and everything MUST be connected IN SOME WAY!. We should celebrate that. I love it. It's fun searching, frustrating, probably involves mental instability at times but you can always stop for a while and do something simpler for a time, The Vulcans of Star Trek fame, celebrate infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Exciting, much better than god and heaven (in my opinion). Each person secretly wants to be a god themselves and be recognised by all others as such, but I think that its just an instinct (probably from the Rcomplex), developed from our time in the wild, where the rule was survival of the fittest. Most of us can suppress and reason away the god complex, quickly.

"About the closed universe. Indirect measurements of gravitational waves (by means of CMBR polarization) showed that certain wavelengths (long ones). This means the universe was and is closed"

I know about cosmic microwave background radiation from the big bang. I know gravitational waves as disturbances in spacetime due to big explosions such as hypernovae. I know gravitational waves have been detected due to 'tiny fluctuations in a particular set up involving laser beams'. I get polarization as light waves being changed so they focus? concentrate? to one direction? The words you typed seem incomplete. "showed that certain wavelengths (long ones)....... incomplete?
and then "This means the Universe was and is closed". So I don't understand what you have typed so far, apart from the understanding I explained above.

"What's your aim in this experiment? I'm not sure I understand. The clocks in intergalactic space show the same rate but the rate by itself is not constant. There are no perfectly periodic clocks"

I don't want any massive objects around to affect the path of the clock in motion or attract the clock which is stationary. For this reason, I place them beside each other in intergalactic space.
One clock is accelerated away from the other, maintaining its straight-line path. At near to the speed of light, time dilation will cause the moving clock to tick much slower than the stationary one.

In your scenario, you said that if the two clocks you described, show different rates of time (meaning one ticks faster than the other) then this shows that space is curved.

Why?

In my scenario there are no curves! and my clocks will show the same as the ones in your scenario. It is the velocity/motion of the accelerated clock that is causing the different time rates, not the curvature of the space they are traversing. What am I missing?

Another point that might interest you is, In my wish to take part in online discussion sites. I have joined one of two of them, including this one. Its been a part of 'what I do,' since retiring.
You are now the third person, who I have discussed cosmology with, who has stated, with serious conviction that they know the structure and origin of the Universe.
Each as convinced as the other that they are right and the current popular hypotheses are wrong.
I can recall some basics but i'm sure if I went back to sites such as Askamathematician/askaphysicist
I could bring up the discussions we had.

One was about Klein bottles and.......that's all I can recall
The other was more recent so I can recall a little more. He posited something he called DIMP
DIMentionless Particle or Point, I can't remember which.
DIMP was outside of spacetime, so outside of this Universe but what started our Universe came from DIMP and I remember he typed a lot about pair production and virtual particles and zero point energy.
It would be good if I could try to find their main jist's again and post them here for you to look at. I am sure there are many other such out there, if I alone have encountered 3 in the past two years.
I am not suggesting in anyway that your proposal is unlikely.
I cant because, like the other two examples, I don't have the knowledge to be able to. I also don't intend or wish to discourage.
On the contrary, I want to celebrate all true seekers. Surely it's the participation that matters not who gets the plaudits

You are now the third person, who I have discussed cosmology with, who has stated, with serious conviction that they know the structure and origin of the Universe.
Each as convinced as the other that they are right and the current popular hypotheses are wrong. — universeness

:cool: :up:

n my scenario there are no curves! and my clocks will show the same as the ones in your scenario. It is the velocity/motion of the accelerated clock that is causing the different time rates, not the curvature of the space they are traversing. What am I missing? — universeness

Sorry! I hadn't seen that you meant this experiment. You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. It's relative stuff. It depends on your state of motion how it looks. If you fall freely in curved space it is flat. If you accelerate in flat space, it looks curved. Space around mass is not inherently curved though, just like space in intergalactic space is not inherently flat. It looks so, but it depends on your state of motion, your relative velocity wrt other bodies, how it appears. If you accelerate towards the speed of light, you will observe that clocks that are stationary in your frame have different ticking rates, like in a gravity field, the difference being that the field you see in that frame is uniform). Relative to the frame from where you leave all clocks in the accelerated frame tick slower and slower. In a gravity field, artificial or not, time at points where the clock stays stationary, tick at a different rate than clocks in rest in empty space. This is an actual difference because acceleration is absolute. It's an actual feature of objects. If a force acts on them then they accelerate. The clock doesn't go faster for you (if you accelerate) though. Only wrt to non-acelerating ones. Seen from two frames with constant relative velocity, the time in the other frame seems to run slower. This doesn't mean that both clocks run slower than the other. It depends on how they started out and meet again (for which acceleration is needed), how their clocks compare. If your clock that accelerates to lightspeed returns, it runs behind the clock that stays behind (twin paradox). If you will go behind it and meet (after it stopped), the clocks will show the same time.

Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation.

It would be good if I could try to find their main jist's again and post them here for you to look at. — universeness

I'm curious! Seems you are sent from heaven! If you want to. But from what you've written they seem wrong. Which I say naturally. All these theories, from the ones I've mentioned to the three you have mentioned, are just pots of crack...

DIMentionless Particle or Point — universeness

There are no point particles. This is an abstraction made in quantum field theory. The only true fundamental particles are two massless basic fields. All particle interactions, like proton decay, are easily explainable in this model. How can a basic particle like a quark change into another quark if it's fundamental? What is space? Maybe the hidden variables of quantum mechanics. Space is a means for charge to interact.

From the urban dictionary:

"Dimp is used when an idea, so dumb, that you just don't want to bother replying.

Jack: Hey do you think the world is flat

Joe: You and your dimp ideas, just shut up."

By the way, curvature only arises because the speed of light is finite, as it should be. What would happen if not? Then space and time would be absolute. Space would loose its relative nature and everything would happen at once. All matter would feel each other at the same time, no cause, no effect, no time no space, no interaction.

On the contrary, I want to celebrate all true seekers. Surely it's the participation that matters not who gets the plaudits — universeness

It would be great to get the plaudits, but that's not why I look for it. The thing that feels shitty though: okay, now what?

You are missing that space for an accelerated guy is curved. That's the weird thing about space. — Raymond

In four dimensions, yes.

In four dimensions, yes — jgill

That's my theory, yes. But in GR space is curved inherently. Like a circle can be described without reference to the 2d space it's in. Without reference to an outside 4th dimension. If you place 3d space, the whole structure, on a 4d space, the 4d torus, there can be 2 of these structures accelerate away from the hole of the torus form. The torus is not actually a torus, but only looks so at the mouth. If matter, contained on the 3d structures (a matter filled one and an antimatter filled one, although both contain the same amounts of the 2 basic massless matter/antimatter fields, but differently combined) accelerates again later on, as observations on supernovae have shown, the 4d structure has to be negatively curved again. This negatively 4d substrate represents dark energy. It gave rise to inflation near the mouth, then inflation stopped and turned the negative curvature to positive, and then, when accelerated far enough from the mouth, the negative returns, as is now happening.

It is precisely this dogmatic attitude towards intrinsic curvature of space that blinds most physicists. Einstein said the curvature is intrinsic, so... The problem with an extra dimension is how to keep matter in 3d. But if this can be done in string theory (gravity leaking in a fourth dimension while matter stays on three, it's no problem. Particles themselves can be a kind of torus too. The product space of three circles, SxSxS.

DIMentionless Particle or Point — universeness

Does he mean dimention? Or dimension?

:halo:

To quote the American philosopher Harry Callahan (aka dirty Harry)
"opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one" — universeness

Imperforate Anus.

:lol:

Ha! Seems that some opinions are pretty distorted!

:lol:

Sorry my replies took a while. I switched to my current book. 'Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and then went to sleep.
An absolutely fascinating read so far.

"Klein bottles in relation to the universe? I'm not sure, was he a Scotsman? That whiskey...There are hundreds of theories about the origin of the universe. Each cosmologist claims a theory. Eternal inflation, the pyrotechnic universe (to which mine actually is very close, but it claims two infinite braines, eeehh, branes, and as I said, the universe only appears flat). All of them have not a clue what dark energy is. I give an explanation"

To specifically respond to "was he a Scotsman?"
I would say humor is such a subjective form, isn't it! But yeah.........ha ha.
A true Scot never puts an 'e' in his whisky, only the cheaper Irish and American grain whiskey's do that.
The Klein bottle guy was in fact American and came across as a very nice person.
James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander Graham Bell, James Watt, John Logie Baird and many other highly contributive scientists were Scots. I think I've made my point. I don't want to get too much into Braveheart mode.

I remembered a little more about the Klien bottles guy. It was all about Klein Bottles and Mobius Strips and he got very insistent about two base variables which he was convinced had to be the digital values 1 and 0 from computing. Even though I told him that in Computing a 1 is received as any voltage > 0 and < 5, which is in fact, analogue data.

I find the brane theory stuff fascinating. I am not familiar with 'Eternal inflation' or 'the pyrotechnic universe' but they sound like two I should read about.