How Does Individual Life 'you' Populate This Universe?

tonylang · March 1, 2022

Matter comes to life;

How does life begin in this universe? What are the critical components and conditions that transform and initiate the most fundamental components of inanimate matter that may evolve into living beings regardless of form or of position in this space-time? The LINE hypothesis proposes that it is the entanglement molecule (EM), debytonic (dark) matter, and the dark neutrino which are the primary information states that have everything to do with the direct implementation of life and individuality in any viable habitat in this universe. These three components properly combined form the indigenous instantiated EM, the most fundamental component the presence of which defines the viability of any habitat for life in this universe. Anywhere in nature where all three of these information states combines under the necessary conditions, life becomes possible. Absent any one of these three critical components, life cannot occur. It is not chemistry, nor temperature, not pressure, or detectable magnetic or gravitational fields alone that define a habitats viability for life. The indigenous instantiated EM is called an; ‘Original EM’ (OEM) in any viable habitat for life. The OEM is the first EM within any ecosystem which gets the ball of life rolling, if you will. All subsequent EM within every evolved living entity are transferred copies of the OEM via a reproductive process.

The LINE hypothesis suggests that the foundation of the EM is the hydrogen proton, and atom, and molecule. Hydrogen protons participate in many molecules in nature not the least of which is H2O (water). It is quite suggestive that the indigenous particle of this universe is the indigenous component of the entanglement molecule in any ecosystem. When life begins, conditions on the Earth, for example, were nothing like it is today or since. The conditions required to precipitate the OEM were not survivable by the living cell or by any biological form. Biological forms evolved later in the evolution of earths ecosystem. Furthermore, these necessary conditions for OEM instantiation may not have ever existed on the Earth itself. The OEM could necessarily have undergone these conditions elsewhere in this universe to be later deposited on the early earth where the conditions to evolve biological forms able to utilized the OEM subsequently emerged. Either of these scenarios could have resulted in the thriving ecosystem we see today. So what are these rarified conditions for seeding life?

The weakly interactive neutrino is well known to interact with the hydrogen protons in H2O as water and ice. This rare sensitivity of the neutrino with hydrogen is the reason neutrino detectors all over the world are constructed with H2O, in any state, as a basis for neutrino detection. However, it is a very special state of the neutrino called the dark neutrino that permits the third component; debytonic (dark) matter, to be captured and become sequestered within the pyrine of the inanimate, uninstantiated EM. This interaction is called natural entanglement, and sequesters free debytons to become valence debytons within the baryonic pyrine of susceptible hydrogen protons. This process instantiates the OEM, the seed of life in every viable habitat.

OEM instantiation is rare because it can only occur within voids. By whatever means, or circumstance, hydrogen protons within an EM (within H2O or other hydro molecules) finds itself within debytonic deserts known as voids, in that place, free neutrinos may oscillate into dark neutrinos, to interact with free debytonic (dark) matter to transform the inanimate EM into the indigenous OEM. Any OEM thereafter could become any ecosystems’ first OEM, the seeds of life. It is only within voids that the neutrinos’ PH bandwidth (flavor) on the universal QE spectrum may naturally oscillate to become the dark neutrino. The dark neutrino is the catalyst that permits free debytonic (dark) matter to be sequestered within the PH regime within the baryonic pyrine of the EM to also increase its QE bandwidth on the universal QE spectrum. This interaction elevates the inanimate EM to become the instantiated OEM. Within any viable environment the OEM becomes the seed that establish the antenna state which may evolve to become the position of view (POV) of the first living individuals within any barren environment. Such environments of high potential are, by this process, able to evolve into viable ecosystems.

Once natural entanglement has occurred in the OEM, it may remain instantiated for a time during which the OEM may participate in the emergence of life within viable habitats. Once life emerges, within any viable habitat, copies of the instantiated OEM are thereafter passed from one living host to another as the instantiated EM, and are imbued with a unique individuals’ QEF, you, via processes of procreation and evolution, natural or otherwise. This rare natural process that entangles baryonic matter with metamatter is the natural interaction of the dark neutrino with debytonic (dark) matter which can only occur within voids, whether natural or synthetic. Once understood, natural entanglement may be duplicated synthetically with appropriate technologies.

tonylang · March 26, 2022

The View From You;

However anxious you may be about your societal status, or about your racial identity and circumstances, you are not anxious enough. If you think that your, and your progeny’s identity is in jeopardy, or perhaps you feel that you are being encroached upon by others, or something is somehow attempting to replace you and yours, or perhaps you just feel more comfortable with living beings that reflect what you currently see in the mirror, well, the reality is in fact more dyer than one can ever imagine. Because, in truth, it is nature itself, the laws of physics of this universe that has its sights unwaveringly centered upon you for replacement. Replacing the host form of every living individual is what nature does. Furthermore, the clock is ticking.

Any individuals’ current cultural demographic group theory only works if the laws of nature uphold ones’ imagined membership therein. As it turns out, nature does not. The most any living human being could reasonably expect after life is to reinstantiate to one’s current ecosystem and to the mammalian class and to any human form therein. If destroying or disenfranchising other living individuals, particularly within ones' current species, seems to be a viable approach to getting or keeping what one desires in life, it is because you believe that you, and yours, will always remain in the form you currently are, or that you will eventually not exist at all. In nature, each is a false assumption. One's desire or indifference towards the destruction or diminution of other living individuals to maintain or uplift one's perceived status in society as a consequence of what you currently believe you are and others are not, is a symptom of the indigenous scorn of individuality that comes from living within a wild culture, as all naturally mediated living beings initially do.

If not corrected, this behavior seeded by false cultural descriptions and narratives, religious or secular, that informs personal identity, will continue to fester in future generations and will continue to limit human progress within and beyond Earth’s gravity-well. Although personal cognitive dissonance will die with the mind of each individual, toxic laws and memes that persist within cultures may infect the minds and lives of those same and other individuals in their future instantiations. While one's deinstantiation, death, marks the end of society's interaction with each host form, death does not mark the end of the individuals’ experience, contribution, or history within ones’ indigenous universe and ecosystem. Within a wild culture, no individual gets to choose nor can one forecast ones’ next host form or future circumstances.

The strange truth about human history, and its countless tragedies, genocides, holocausts, slavery, and all manner of reprehensible goings-on, executed by individuals and groups thereof, is that each individual lives each lifetime steeped in the misconception that in life, past, present, and future, they have been, and will always remain, in the form and contrived grouping they currently accept, or perhaps nothing at all. In nature, this perception could not be farther from the truth. The perceived significance given to contrived human cultural groupings is a delusion born of long-entrenched collective ignorance about life and individual identity. You will remember and remain in the physical form you currently are only for the duration of ones’ current lifetime among the countless lifetimes that nature has, and will again define for you. In other lifetimes you likely were and will again live as a member of the very groups you now regard as other, for better or for worst. This general relativity of individuality operates ubiquitously upon all living beings. Until a culture understands and accepts this reality its individuals will not understand what is truly important in any instance of life.

Consider, if in any lifetime one is described as say; Chinese, for example, one would likely believe and act as though you must have been Chinese in the long history of earth life, if at all, and will remain so in future lifetimes or not at all. Consequently, it feels natural to bias ones support to those that classify similarly for ones’ current and future well-being. Likewise, gender is currently a defining feature of individual identity. If ones’ gender is male in your current life, you operate as if you must have always been male in history, and will continue to be male in your future. Do you believe that nature can, in each lifetime, instantiate you as you are now, male or female or however you self-identify? Reasonable minds would say no. If you don’t think that the laws of physics could reliably repeatedly reinstantiate you to your current or preferred gender state, whatever that may be, then upon what basis might nature implement any other more nuanced and arbitrary demographic feature of one’s current culturally contrived identity? Features such as skin complexion, fur and hair texture, delicate facial features, gender, height, location etc. upon which you may or may not self-identify. The operating assumption that the laws of physics of this universe can essentially conspire with each individual to implement ones’ current or preferred contrived cultural identity beyond this lifetime is delusional.

This cognitive dissonance is endemic to all human beings no matter ones’ current form or circumstances. This is so because the knowledge required to thoroughly, or sufficiently explain how life could operate otherwise was not available for all of human history. The LINE hypothesis proposes that it is ones’ degrees of freedom of the universal quantum entanglement spectrum (QEF) imprinted in metamatter, ones’ lifeID, that informs which available host forms you have instantiated in your past and will reinstantiate in your future. Ones’ current hosts’ DNA is indeed more closely related to some host forms than others, but not in any way that can support human expectations of historical and current cultural human demographic categorizations. Within natures’ reinstantiation lottery, given current human population growth, any individual that is currently in the human form can reasonably expect to be naturally reinstantiated to any random human host, and slightly less so to compatible non-human mammalian hosts. The controlled influence of this natural process underpins a cultures’ emergence from its’ wild state.

The lessons not yet learned is that living beings will not forever or for long, inhabit one’s current host form, nor ones' current nation, nor ones’ current planet, ecosystem or solar system. By the laws of nature, all individuals recurrently inhabit this universe for as long a time as conditions may accommodate. The question then becomes, for how long will one inhabit ones’ current solar-system, current planet and ecosystem, and current host form. The latter is the most variable component of all. So, how could any uninfluenced reproductive process bias toward or away from each individuals’ preference or disdain of host features in oneself and in others? If nature could accommodate such whimsical detail, we should historically routinely discover past highly recognizable host forms reborn among the living. Martin Luther King Jr. or Marilyn Monroe perhaps. Even though they would naturally begin life yet again as infants, and if all goes normally, they would eventually grow up. Surely, someone would by now have noticed them, or young Michael Jackson perhaps, if duplication of host forms was indeed nature's routine.

No, we can assuredly state that no living form is duplicated regardless of the similarity of appearance. Even if host forms were or could be naturally or synthetically duplicated, it would change nothing because individuality is monogamisitc and is not defined by appearance or even by identical DNA, ergo; appearance and DNA does not instantiate the individual. Hence, is the premise reasonable upon which individuals operate in life? That one should perpetrate for, or against others of ones’ species in favor of what one currently sees in the mirror, and do so with no regard for what comes next? Except, human beings do very much care about what comes next. This is why billions pray and take the sacrament, bow to Mecca, wear a bourka, wail at the Western Wall, and probe the laws of nature. Human beings do very much care and indeed live in consideration of what comes next. The problem is, no one has ever understood how nature implements ones’ individuality in and beyond ones’ current lifetime.

One may be instantiated today to a host form categorized as native Nigerian or Jewish, for example, and yet, may have been instantiated as native German-Arian or vice versa during the events of slavery and WW2. This general relativity of individuality mandates that no individual ought to be assumed to have played any particular role in, or is culpable for, a past in which the current instance of the individual did not exist, regardless of ones’ current cultural categorization. Furthermore, to the extent that any historically recognized group perpetrates crimes against humanity, past or present, existing perpetrating groups ought to be held to account for the sole purpose of correcting remaining consequences of such dysfunctions. This may sound like a contradiction. How can a group of individuals be held responsible but not its individuals? This distinction is made regularly in corporate litigation. In such cases, corporations may be held culpable for corporate wrongdoings and supporting policies even after the individuals involved have left the company, or are deceased. In such cases, justice may be given to victims and to society via corrective measures. Justice may be given for offenses perpetrated by groups so large, powerful, and influential with laws supporting past and present heinous acts which may constitute offenses made by society against humanity, and ought to be treated accordingly. Most importantly, all future individuals ought to be protected against similar future infractions, because in the future, it will be you or I that is living in the form of others.

Instantiating you and me, and ones’ offspring, and every individual position of view (POV), is what nature does, repeatedly. Furthermore, within wild cultures, such as human cultures, you don’t get to choose your next form, demographics, or ones’ initial location or circumstances. So, if you are busy being worried about being replaced, it may help to realize that, within a wild culture, no living being will for long remain what they currently are or imagine, nor have control of what comes next. Consequently, the conditions we leave behind, even for others, are the conditions that await us in our future. It is only the living conditions of one’s current ecosystem, or adopted environment, and current and future social prospects that are within ones’ influence in each lifetime. Strongly held fantasies about the workings of this universe will not change reality. So, do everything you can to make life better for all, mostly for your own sake.

tonylang · May 20, 2022

The Distillation Of Matter;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that the matter-antimatter imbalance that exists in this universe is a consequence of the universal instantiation event (UIE) followed by many cycles of universal expansion and contraction phases. Each cycle is punctuated by a universal transition event (UTE). The UIE and UTE are the metaverse phenomena widely known as the big bang. However, it is the UIE that initially instantiates each verse. As expected, the UIE and UTE do indeed produce an equal quantity of matter and its’ antiparticle. As the new expanding universe gains information and evolves sufficient complexity therein, the universal expansion not only slows as the universal rendering rate diminishes, but eventually may reverse to initiate a universal contraction phase.

The dynamics of changes in the universal spatial degrees of freedom (DOF) called dark energy is informed by the universal information budget (UIB). The UIB is governed by the transitions of information in, out, thru, and the universal information load and complexity in this universe. The UIB informs the universal rendering rate of change (time) and of distance (dark energy). Once the contraction of space reaches a critical density which invariably destroys a critical amount of complexity, the contracting universe enters a new UTE phase. This UTE phase is the turn-around phase following each contraction phase as the universal rendering rate rebounds. During the UTE black holes that do not dissipate are the only information structures from the previous cycle that may survive the UTE. Surviving black holes emerge from the UTE as galaxoids that will populate the next universal expansion phase.

Initiating each UTE, conditions from the previous contraction phase returns matter and space to the degenerate information state called the solution of state (SoS). Each UTE is initiated by an arbitrary quantity of information as SoS. Matter and antimatter are created within the UIE and UTE in equal amounts. Nonetheless, the remnants of matter and antimatter from each UIE and each UTE is not balanced and the remaining matter will eventually seed the next expansion phase. An imbalance in matter occurs because within the UIE and UTE there is no annihilation of matter as we know it. Annihilation occurs in this universe in normal space-time as a consequence of the normal structure of the Planck Hole (PH) scaffolding of space together with the stable structure of the pyrine and other states of information. During the UIE and each UTE, the PH and the pyrine do not exist, hence, matter and space is no longer normal.

Further, the quantity of the SoS, the degenerate state of matter initiating each UTE will transform during each UTE into equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, without immediate or timely annihilation, the matters are free to not only separate, but to become otherwise involved during the UIE and UTE and also during inflation. Consequently, matter is thereby allowed to enter into other unbeknownst UTE processes and reactions. During these opaque transitions within each UTE, one of the two competing matter states may diminish relative to the other. This imbalance will permit the lesser constituent matter to eventually become negligible thereby leaving the other to dominate the next expansion phase. This leftover matter is the matter that will form the relatively stable tangible reality of the next expansion phase of a universe. This stable reality will not exist until the vast preponderance of one of the two constituent matter particles have been sufficiently diminished by primordial annihilation. Primordial annihilation occurs only when the PH scaffolding of space emerges to support the pyrine and other information states of particles. This cyclical process may evolve to produce the foundation for a relatively stable universe capable of hosting life and observers. This remaining matter seeds the WOF halos around surviving black holes to form galaxoids which in time evolve to become galaxies in this universe.

By this UTE process of matter distillation, it isn’t until a quiescence of matter, writ large, is reached in any verse can life emerge. In many verses produced by the metaverse, such survivable conditions never occur, and yet in others, this distillation of matter could eventually evolve into life as it has in this universe. As in any distillation process information is conserved, and yet, information states become separated. The mechanism by which this filtering of antimatter from matter takes place emerges during the dynamics of many UTE. The UTE is a largely metaverse phenomenon the fundamental details of which is scientifically opaque to the physics of this universe. Nonetheless, there are methods by which some UTE properties, the number of UTE cycles that has occurred thus far, for example, can be determined in this space-time. A consequence of the UTE distillation of matter occurring outside of this universe is the reason antimatter is absent from this space while its constituent particle remains. Precisely how this occurs as a metaverse process is perhaps unknowable. Suffice it to say that the laws of conservation of information are upheld during each UTE, and presents one thread of understanding available to nimble minded observers within this universe of this pivotal phenomenon that largely occurs within the metaverse.

tonylang · June 9, 2022

Further, the LINE hypothesis proposes that one difference between a universal instantiation event (UIE) and any universal transition event (UTE) is the quantity of fundamental elements initially created. The UIE is the instantiating event which may create an amount of fundamental elements that is calculable from a correctly conceived standard model of particles. The UTE is one of many transition events subsequent to the UIE and is driven by circumstances of the prior contraction phase. The UTE phase will not have an instantiating amount of energy as does the UIE. Nor will a UTE express the instantiating metaverse states which produces a UIE equivalent amount of fundamental elements such as hydrogen helium and lithium.

The LINE hypothesis predicts that the UTE will produce circumstantially less of the fundamental elements, ergo; hydrogen, helium and lithium than predicted for the UIE. Calculations that estimate the quantity of initial fundamental hadronic elements currently do not anticipate the potentially numerous subsequent UTE cycles which create the current post UTE state of the universe.

Predictably, this is because a UIE is more energetic than a UTE. Also, because the UIE involves more fundamental levels of the metaverse information states called the solutions of state (SoS) and their metaverse processes that are not achievable during any UTE phase. These differences create different outcomes. Given that today both the UIE and UTE are considered to be the same ‘big bang’ event, calculated expectations that assume ‘big bang’ (post UIE-pre UTE) fundamental element quantities, will contradict measurements taken within any subsequent UTE expansion phase. So, if a contradiction between calculated expectations and observation of initial fundamental particle quantities is found to exist within ones’ current universe, The LINE hypothesis suggests that this is the indicator that this is a cyclic universe older than one universal transition cycle.

Why would the current calculated population of pre-fusion fundamental particles not reflect the current measured quantity? This is because the calculated quantities may consider universal constants that were forged not during any prior UTE, but during the UIE. There are universal constants that are instantiated during the UIE which may remain unchanged through each UTE.

During each UTE, some, not all, universal constants become reinstantiated. Therefore, such indigenous fixed universal constants will yield an accurate calculated particle population created only in the UIE phase. Subsequent UTE phases will not create a fundamental particle population that is consistent with this calculated quantity. Such fixed universal constants may determine the existence of the types of matter (hadronic, leptonic, debytonic etc.) that will exist within the new verse. Such matter types will populate all future cycles of the current verse, in any quantity. Such fixed-constants do not determine the quantity of matter created by each UTE phase. It falls to other non-fixed constants reinitialized during each UTE together with the informational content and circumstances of the prior contraction phase to determine the details of the next universal expansion.

Edited June 9, 2022 by tonylang

tonylang · August 4, 2022

The Nature and Constancy of Light;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that while matter is sufficiently different from space, fields and their particles (bosons) are not at all different from space. All fields are states of the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the Planck hole (PH) antenna state that define the scaffolding of space in this universe. Fundamentally, all interactions of matter with any field i.e. the electromagnetic field (EMF), and gravitation, and the strong and weak forces, are effects upon non-space information states, ergo; matter, with the state of PH dilation of the space that matter occupies. Hence, interactions between matter with matter is different from the interaction of matter with the space matter occupies. Furthermore, there also are interactions of space with space. All of the confusion concerning light (photons); its’ particle-wave duality, its constancy, its speed and its effects, all emerge from the misperception that the photon is an entity separate from, and traveling through, space. This useful misconception, like Newtonian forces or ideas of electrons as particles flowing through wires will be challenging for some to abandon. The electron is an information state called a lepton possessing sufficient mass to distinguish it as a matter particle different from the space it occupies. Not so for the photon. The LINE hypothesis suggests that EMF (photons) do not exist as particles that travel through space. Instead, EMF is the propagating degrees of freedom (DOF) of space itself.

This distinction may seem to be a subtle one, however, like other misperceptions of nature, such misperceptions may only become salient in particular circumstances. Why not consider the proposed propagation of spatial DOF as a distinct field having quantized particles called photons? The misperception of a boson, i.e. photon, traveling through space, not unlike the epicycles of the earth centered solar system, or Newtonian mechanics, or concepts of the electron as a particle flowing in wires, can appear to describe reality up to a point, but no further. For the traveling photon the constancy of the speed of light is one such point. The difference between matter and energy traveling through space and the propagating DOF of space is that matter is a very different PH dilation on the QE spectrum from the QE bandwidths described as bosons. Matter is a structured information state of the PH of space forged during the universal instantiation event (UIE) having DOF that separates it from the space it occupies in distinctive ways.

Although any name can be given to any concept, real or imagined, electromagnetism and gravitation are both manifestations of the same misunderstood DOF of space and its’ effects upon amalgamated space called matter. The LINE hypothesis suggests that all DOF of this universe emerge most fundamentally by variations of the dilation at information teleportation bandwidths of the interconnected PH that define the scaffolding of space. PH are dilated by various means at particular bandwidths that define the universal QE spectrum. For the photon, this particular range of QE bandwidths define the EMF. The spectrum of bandwidths by which information teleports; in, out and through this space from the underlying Hilbert-space called the metaverse, defines the universal QE spectrum.

Today human science continues to conceive of ever greater numbers of fields and their associated particles. In reality, there is only one field, that is, the PH field called space and its’ teleportation state called the universal quantum entanglement (QE) spectrum. The QE spectrum defines the dilations of the most fundamental antenna state, that is, the PH of space. Dilations of spatial PH produce all emerged fields, forces, and particles. Emerged outcomes depend upon the state of PH dilation of occupied space with other involved information states and energies. The interaction with the PH dilation of space called a photon can occur with space in other states of PH dilation, i.e. gravitation. Also, there are interactions of space with other information states having structure that define it as separate from space, as is matter. Baryonic matter is amalgamated space that possesses DOF that define it as separate from the space it occupies. Bosons are different from matter.

Unlike matter, bosons are a state of space that remains entangled with the PH regime from which it emerges, hence, maintains gauge-symmetry. Bosons are sufficiently massless (having insignificant rest mass) to remain strongly entangled for extended periods of time ranging from fractions of a second to cosmological epochs of time. Not unlike gravitation, all effects of EMF (light, photons) are therefore effects upon information states by the PH dilation of the space those information states instantaneously occupy. In some cases, it is nothing more than PH dilations of space interacting with different PH dilations of space misperceived to be photons traveling through space. In other cases, it is in fact matter interacting with the space it occupies. Conceptually, matter occupying undilated space (space at ground-state QE bandwidth), is matter in vacuum. Like mater in a still ocean, matter in vacuum is relatively subjected to minimal propagating PH dilations and only to the ground-state PH dilation of space.

The cause of the constancy of the speed of light, that is the speed of propagation of the DOF states of the EMF, is the same cause of the constancy of gravitation upon different masses of baryonic matter, i.e. a feather and an iron ball. EMF and gravitation are the effect upon matter by the space matter occupies. EMF and gravitation are different dilations of the PH degrees of freedom of space at different values of the information teleportation bandwidths on the universal quantum entanglement (QE) spectrum. The teleportation bandwidth of space informs the universal information budget (UIB).

Baryonic matter cannot transition, travel or move through the PH regimes of space faster than the state (propagation of the PH dilation) of that space. As a fish cannot travel faster than the state of the water it is in. It is for the same reason that different masses of baryonic matter (feather and iron ball) is equally accelerated through space by gravitation. Like EMF, gravitation is also the state of PH dilation mandated by occupied space. This mandate between matter and the space it occupies is informed by the natural debytonic sequestration capacity of the pyrine that projects matter from the Planck scale into the subatomic realm. All baryonic matter in this universe dilates the PH of occupied and surrounding space equally per pyrine. Hence the information deficit paid to the UIB for EMF and for gravitation is the same in all baryonic matter. EMF (light) and gravitation are both the state of space informed by the debytonic sequestration capacity of baryonic matter. Matter in this universe has amalgamated to be sufficiently different from space hence is specifically affected by the space it occupies. Space instantiates matter, hence baryonic matter cannot normally or naturally transition faster than, nor accelerate differently within, the space matter occupies. Alter the debytonic sequestration capacity of the feather and not the iron ball and you produce a feather that falls differently than the iron ball on the surface of the moon.

Further, a cause of EMF called a source is a cause of the PH dilation of space at a particular QE bandwidth. Gravitation and other considered fields and their particles are yet a different PH dilation at particular bandwidths of the QE spectrum. There are two types of EMF causes in this universe. EMF dilations are produced by either a primary or secondary cause.

There are primary causes of EMF (called sources) and secondary causes (called reflections, heat, radiation etc.). Primary and secondary EMF causes both dilate the PH of surrounding space. Only primary EMF causes are indigenous inflows of information in this universe. Primary EMF causes radiates information into this universe from the underlying metaverse as propagating dilations of the PH widely described as photons. Particles, atoms, molecules, and collections thereof, under particular circumstances produce any or both types of causes of the PH dilations of space as the EMF. A primary cause of EMF is matter undergoing a process such as fusion, fission, burning and other chemical reactions that actively positively dilates the PH scaffolding of occupied space at EMF QE bandwidths. Such information inflows constitute a net gain of information to the universal information budget (UIB) as photons, i.e. light. In the absence of matter this EMF potential manifests as a propagating PH dilation of the DOF of space at the maximum universal rendering rate, the speed of light. This propagating potential of space is historically described as an emission of particles called photons.

Nonetheless, no emissions or effects occur in vacuum, only the propagating PH dilation of space itself. In truth an indigenous EMF cause, known as a source, is not emitting photons that travel through space, but instead is dilating the PH bandwidth of the space the precipitating matter occupies out to infinity. Metaphorically, as a wave of energy travels through water until an interaction with matter or with other waves occurs. Likewise does the PH dilation propagation of space. Photons that enter this space through matter states and reactions very quickly become involved in standing waves as bonds and other atomic subatomic and molecular effects. Such internal interactions occur within and throughout the involved matter as it dilates the PH regimes of occupied space internally and at its boundaries. These boundary effects of matter with the space it occupies indigenously dilates surrounding space to produce primary EMF causal effects such as radiant light and heat emissions, etc. as seen in stars, light bulbs, and fire etc. Secondary EMF causes involve only the surface effect upon matter by the pre-existing dilations of the space matter occupies. Hence reflections, external heating, and EMF effects etc. are typical. All unoccupied space is dilated to some degree by all primary and secondary causes of EMF in this universe.

tonylang · August 25, 2022

On 6/9/2022 at 1:40 PM, tonylang said:

Further, the LINE hypothesis proposes that one difference between a universal instantiation event (UIE) and any universal transition event (UTE) is the quantity of fundamental elements initially created. The UIE is the instantiating event which may create an amount of fundamental elements that is calculable from a correctly conceived standard model of particles. The UTE is one of many transition events subsequent to the UIE and is driven by circumstances of the prior contraction phase. The UTE phase will not have an instantiating amount of energy as does the UIE. Nor will a UTE express the instantiating metaverse states which produces a UIE equivalent amount of fundamental elements such as hydrogen helium and lithium.

The LINE hypothesis predicts that the UTE will produce circumstantially less of the fundamental elements, ergo; hydrogen, helium and lithium than predicted for the UIE. Calculations that estimate the quantity of initial fundamental hadronic elements currently do not anticipate the potentially numerous subsequent UTE cycles which create the current post UTE state of the universe.

Predictably, this is because a UIE is more energetic than a UTE. Also, because the UIE involves more fundamental levels of the metaverse information states called the solutions of state (SoS) and their metaverse processes that are not achievable during any UTE phase. These differences create different outcomes. Given that today both the UIE and UTE are considered to be the same ‘big bang’ event, calculated expectations that assume ‘big bang’ (post UIE-pre UTE) fundamental element quantities, will contradict measurements taken within any subsequent UTE expansion phase. So, if a contradiction between calculated expectations and observation of initial fundamental particle quantities is found to exist within ones’ current universe, The LINE hypothesis suggests that this is the indicator that this is a cyclic universe older than one universal transition cycle.

Why would the current calculated population of pre-fusion fundamental particles not reflect the current measured quantity? This is because the calculated quantities may consider universal constants that were forged not during any prior UTE, but during the UIE. There are universal constants that are instantiated during the UIE which may remain unchanged through each UTE.

During each UTE, some, not all, universal constants become reinstantiated. Therefore, such indigenous fixed universal constants will yield an accurate calculated particle population created only in the UIE phase. Subsequent UTE phases will not create a fundamental particle population that is consistent with this calculated quantity. Such fixed universal constants may determine the existence of the types of matter (hadronic, leptonic, debytonic etc.) that will exist within the new verse. Such matter types will populate all future cycles of the current verse, in any quantity. Such fixed-constants do not determine the quantity of matter created by each UTE phase. It falls to other non-fixed constants reinitialized during each UTE together with the informational content and circumstances of the prior contraction phase to determine the details of the next universal expansion.

Galaxies do not evolve from dust;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that UTE’s instantiate galaxoids that typically evolve into galaxies. This places a minimum limit on the initial state (mass, size, gravitation, etc.) of galaxy formation to that of a typical galaxoid. Below this minimum only the central primordial black hole exists, having any possible size. Such primordial black holes that do not form a galaxoid could still rarely, circumstantially seed a new galaxy. After each UTE, galaxoids circumstantially emerge with different accumulations of information as its’ encompassing WOF halo. WOF halos having different masses and densities encompassing a central black hole forms galaxoids that begin their long evolution into galaxies. Hence, because galaxies don’t evolve from dust, galaxies will be observed to have larger than expected initial masses and sizes and will appear more evolved at the earliest observable stages of universal expansion.

tonylang · September 2, 2022

On 8/25/2022 at 7:27 PM, tonylang said:

Galaxies do not evolve from dust;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that UTE’s instantiate galaxoids that typically evolve into galaxies. This places a minimum limit on the initial state (mass, size, gravitation, etc.) of galaxy formation to that of a typical galaxoid. Below this minimum only the central primordial black hole exists, having any possible size. Such primordial black holes that do not form a galaxoid could still rarely, circumstantially seed a new galaxy. After each UTE, galaxoids circumstantially emerge with different accumulations of information as its’ encompassing WOF halo. WOF halos having different masses and densities encompassing a central black hole forms galaxoids that begin their long evolution into galaxies. Hence, because galaxies don’t evolve from dust, galaxies will be observed to have larger than expected initial masses and sizes and will appear more evolved at the earliest observable stages of universal expansion.

The Tension In Cosmology;

Nimble minded astronomers and cosmologists will not need to think very deeply to identify one non-fixed constant, namely the Hubble constant. Explainable by the LINE hypothesized description of the UIE and UTE metaverse phenomena is the current observed inconsistencies in measurements of the value of the Hubble constant. Inconsistent estimates for the value of the Hubble constant derive from calculations based upon properties of the current CMB compared to calculations from measurements of stellar luminosity profiles. Inexplicably, each give sufficiently different values for the Hubble constant to raise concerns.

The LINE hypothesis proposes that the discrepancy in the current estimates of the Hubble constant is a consequence of the UIE which produced the universal first-light now referred to as the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The CMB encodes not only aspects of the UIE’s first-light but the current CMB also encodes the transition-light of all subsequent UTE phases. This is because aspects of the first-light will survive each UTE. Consequently, an improperly decoded CMB will not accurately describe the current post UTE universal expansion profile described as the Hubble constant.

The original (post-UIE, pre-UTE) CMB would predict the correct Hubble constant only for features observed within the initial phase of universal evolution. CMB profiles subsequent to the first-light of the initial universal expansion is called transition–light. Elder CMB’s will have been imprinted by the transition-light of each subsequent UTE. Additionally, stellar luminosity profiles are informed only by the previous universal event. Each, on its face, will inform a different value for the Hubble constant if not correctly considered in calculations and measurements taken within any phase of universal evolution, not only for the Hubble constant, but for any dynamic property of this universe.

tonylang · October 31, 2022

Choice v. Life

Individual control over ones’ own body ought to be sacrosanct within any culture. Why? Because any abdication or usurpation of individual bodily sovereignty is one brick on the slippery road to total bondage, ergo; slavery. In the ignorant minds of some individuals too errantly indoctrinated within a wild culture, slavery may seem to be a viable state for other individuals. Nonetheless, it is only the ignorance of the true nature of one’s own living circumstances within nature's reinstantiation lottery that permits this cognitive dissonance to persist. The perception that you, and yours, will always remain in the form and circumstance you currently are or prefer is the fire in which wild minds burn. The actual natural description of life in this universe proposed by the LINE hypothesis suggests that permitting the curtailing and enslaving of individual bodily sovereignty, within any culture, is to enslave one’s self.

For this reason, a woman’s right to choose to give birth or not ought to be an inalienable right. Furthermore, a woman’s choice ought to be an informed choice. Within a wild culture, such as human cultures, a woman’s choice is not and has never been informed. In the history of human civilization, no one has understood the true nature of individual life in this universe. No one, and no woman, has ever understood the actual natural mechanism by which one lives. Hence, to date, a woman’s choice has been an uninformed choice. Understanding the mechanism by which individuals instantiate in this universe permits a woman to make an informed choice as to whether she will give birth or not. A woman’s ability and freedom to weigh her current circumstances against the reality that describes the current state of her species and her own prospects for reinstantiation to that species is what describes a woman’s informed choice.

For human beings, life is a process of individual instantiation. To grasp the natural instantiation mechanism, compare a living individual to an acrobat suspended from a trapeze. In this metaphor, a trapeze is a much too delicate rod suspended at both ends to fixed cables (LINE’s). In this analogy, the rod, like the host form, becomes more fragile with time spent supporting the acrobat and is also vulnerable to disease and misfortunes of circumstance therefore may last only for an arbitrarily short length of time. Hence, for the acrobat, you, the rod may remain viable for 9 decades, 9 years, or for 9 months, or less. Eventually, the rod that maintains the acrobats’ life LINE will fail and the acrobat, the individual will fall. It is this fall of individuality that we must understand to shed light on the critical topic of life and a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy or to give birth in her current circumstances.

Consider that suspended below every falling acrobat, every deceased individual, of which there will always be many, exists countless localized nets each metaphorically composed of crisscrossed LINES. Any of these available nets could catch an acrobat and break the acrobat's fall. These nets which could catch a falling acrobat are the extant host forms by which species are categorized within any viable habitat of which earths ecosystem is but one. Furthermore, the probability that any particular net will catch, ergo; instantiate a particular falling acrobat is informed by the metaphorical structure of the net and the size of the acrobat. Any acrobat may fall right through any net if both information structures aren’t conducive, in both state and time, to a catch. The effective structure of any net may be considered to be the spacing of the LINE’s that compose the net, essentially the holes in the net. As any acrobat falls, the individual’s effective state in nature that is relevant to a catch gets smaller as if the acrobat shrinks in size with time spent falling.

Which nets are ideal to catch a particular individual? This idealized scenario, though highly improbable, is very important to grasp the critically important natural mechanism of individual instantiation in this space-time. The ideal host form may be thought of as a net which, to the particular individual, has minimally sized holes or no holes at all, through which the falling acrobat may pass. The only host that could fulfill this demand is one’s most recent, now deceased host. Or alternatively, one that is as identical to one’s recent host form as possible. In practice, this describes a high-fidelity clone of one’s former host form. This ideal host would also need to exist within the LINE period (LPD). The LPD is the time during gestation when the gestating host is able to instantiate a new individual. Also, the acrobat must simultaneously be available in a state of falling, uninstantiated (dead). All of these factors must align in time and state (not space) for this idealized instantiation to occur. Needless to say, this idealized alignment of factors is naturally highly improbable. In reality idealized hosts are never available in state nor in time to one’s death. Consequently, reinstantiation is probabilistically frequent to any extant viable hosts as the state of any acrobats lifeID falls in its compatibility to its previous host and falls in size towards other naturally compatible nets in this universe.

The LINE hypothesis suggests that it is the individuals QEF and host history imprinted in metamatter called the LifeID that informs which nets are viable to catch and reinstantiate a particular falling acrobat. With time spent falling, the holes of other nets representing increasingly different compatible hosts, probabilistically becomes suitable to catch any acrobat. Further, in time, tunneling becomes a path for instantiation. The instantiation of any uninstantiated individual may occur to a largely incompatible host form via tunneling alone. The uninstantiated individuals’ LifeID may probabilistically, non-deterministically, tunnel in defiance of its encoded fidelity of teleportation (FT) to entangle any host form located anywhere in nature. Ergo, you may be human by tunneling alone, or by natures usual mechanism or by unbeknownst synthetic intervention. In a wild culture, no individual can know how one instantiated into their current circumstance in life.

Consider, that with each rotation of the earth there is some number of deceased individuals. Hopefully, there is also an adequate number of newly conceived viable human hosts to instantiate those same and perhaps a number of individuals new to the human form. The proportion of gestating hosts of a particular species to newly deceased individuals of that species daily, monthly or annually, is the proportion that informs which and how many individuals will instantiate into that species during that period. A number of seconds ago equal to your age you were but one of many such individuals within that second of time, seeking a new life, and so you will be again. Consequently, what is most important to individual life is to maintain the conception rate of ones’ species above its’ mortality rate. Thereby assuring that recently deceased humans, for example, have viable human hosts available for reinstantiation. Additionally, all homo sapien hosts are equal candidates to instantiate any formerly human lifeID based upon deep genetic alleles which informs ones FT and each individuals’ prospects for reinstantiation. Further, it is preferred, for your own sake, that each net, each human host that will instantiate you in your future, is a host that will have equal benefit within its culture to live the fullest life the culture has to offer to any individual therein.

In this regard human population, conception and mortality rates are factors important to the future of every human alive today. The more human nets there are, the better. While spontaneous events such as wars, natural disasters, i.e. pandemics can sharply and suddenly spike the human mortality rate in days, minutes or even seconds, the conception rate will only ever rise and fall relatively slowly over a period of years. This difference in the availability of viable human hosts could one day not only leave you out of the human experience, but will expose you to life as a non-human host.

If reinstantiating into your current species is what one desires in life then every viable host of that species is a net waiting to catch a falling acrobat. No matter the hosts culturally contrived demographic categorization. For humans, being human again should be of paramount importance. Furthermore, while to the individual, life span may seem to be important, it is not as important as instantiation to the human form, for any duration even for a duration less than 9 months after instantiation. Once instantiation to a host form has occurred, for any span of time, the preponderance of the benefit that living has to offer has been bestowed to the individuals’ LifeID. A benefit that informs ones’ future prospects for reinstantiation to the human form. Hanging on, as it were, to humanity is the prize that all human acrobats seek because to do otherwise is to fall into the depths of the wild. With this understanding a cultures’, and a woman’s choice, becomes informed. In a thriving prodigious procreative species within a thriving ecosystem, a woman’s choice is as informed as it is within a culture on the precipice of extinction. Be careful in the choices you make and when you make them. In a healthy ecosystem and species an aborted pregnancy is very soon remediated as there are many other viable hosts for instantiation for former and for new human individuals. Within a wild culture, this carousel of life is not one that any individual can avoid. So be mindful of the current state of life within ones’ ecosystem, and of a woman’s right to bodily sovereignty.

tonylang · December 17, 2022

Schrodinger’s galaxies do not evolve from dust;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that surviving transitional black holes and their encompassing wall of fire (WOF) halos are inflated during universal transition events (UTE), aka; ‘big bang’, to become galaxoids that typically evolve into galaxies. Hence, all galaxies that evolve from galaxoids were concurrently instantiated. That is, no typical galaxy began its’ evolution at a different time or position from any other typical galaxy in this universe. Further, very few galaxies originate by a process independent of a galaxoid. Ergo, typical galaxies are the same age. Furthermore, as a new universal expansion evolves, the universal information budget informs the rendering of space as the increasing or stretching of the distance between all non-space amalgams of information, aka; ‘dark energy’. Ergo, typical galaxoids instantiate at the same position in space. Unlike stars that ignite arbitrarily in time and space only when conditions of particle and dust densities are proper for stellar ignition, all galaxoids instantiate at the same time and position during each UTE. Hence, stars begin their evolution unpredictably. Not so for galaxoids that evolve into galaxies. Galaxoids begin simultaneously only to become separated by the UIB rendering of space as galaxoids evolve into galaxies.

One can be forgiven for thinking that galaxoids typically begin star formation and thereby emit light similarly. Not so. A galaxoid is a transitional black hole, of any possible size, encompassed by primordial matter particles that were superluminally inflated into position, all instantiated during the last UTE. The range of potential initial galaxoid states informed by the dynamics of each UTE is sufficiently diverse to make the schedule for initial star formation within unique galaxoids equally diverse. Ego, galaxoids will begin star formation and light emission at different times during its long evolution into a galaxy. Because the central black hole of a galaxoid is encompassed by primordial particles, predominantly hydrogen within the current expansion phase, initial stars will be predominantly seen as very bright, high ultraviolet, blue stars producing very bright galaxies at the earliest observable stages of universal expansion. Galaxoids that bloom later run a greater chance of becoming contaminated by stellar dust of dead stars from neighboring evolving galaxies, via mergers and such, even before emitting their galactic first light.

Further, galaxoids do not initially emit light or any EMF. Consequently, Doppler shift, although useful for measuring the distances to emissive bodies such as stars, for galaxies, Doppler shift reveals only information about the time after emitted light, for example, began its journey to the observer. Like a car traveling toward an observer with its headlights turned off, and only turning on its headlights at some arbitrary point in its journey, galaxoids do not emit light on a common schedule. Not until the preponderance of star formation within a galaxoid begins and reaches a threshold does emitted light provide a measurable Doppler shift. The Doppler measurement of arbitrarily emitted light will not encode the valuable data about a galaxy's age, position, and origin story relative to neighboring galaxies. Therefore, neighboring galaxies can appear to have drastically different distances, sizes, masses, and ages that can appear to contradict the ‘big bang’ origin narrative, but doesn’t. A so-called; Schrodinger’s galaxy fits the description of a typical galaxoid.

Because galaxoids evolve into galaxies as the universe evolves, Schrodinger’s galaxies, being galaxoids, will only be seen at the earliest observable stages of universal expansion. The effect of a galaxoids arbitrary Doppler measurement is evident only at the earliest stage of its evolution after its first light becomes measurable. In time, mature galaxies will have mature neighbors that will all be erroneously assumed to have equally informative Doppler profiles. It is only at the largest z-factors where some galaxoids and not others have just begun to emit their first light that the Schrodinger effect of galaxies being in two states simultaneously becomes evident.

write4u · December 17, 2022

On 3/28/2018 at 8:58 PM, tonylang said:

By the 11th day of gestation of a human embryo, for example, being no bigger than the head of a pin yet it contains many hundred cells every one of them a living individual in nature.

I question that statement.

AFAIK, a living "organism" is an emergent property of a complex assembly of individual components which in themselves are not living organisms but complex bio-molecular structures, each unable to sustain their existence apart from the whole.

As in amoeba, it was found that a single cell may constitute a whole organism. Chlamydomonas, Paramecium and bacteria are some more examples of unicellular organisms (uni meaning single). We can also see that a group of cells together form a single body and perform different functions of the body and these organisms are called multicellular organisms (multi means many).

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-are-living-organisms-made-up-of/

While there are living unicellular organisms, not all cells are living organisms

What Is a Cell?

Quote

Trees in a forest, fish in a river, horseflies on a farm, lemurs in the jungle, reeds in a pond, worms in the soil — all these plants and animals are made of the building blocks we call cells. Like these examples, many living things consist of vast numbers of cells working in concert with one another. Other forms of life, however, are made of only a single cell, such as the many species of bacteria and protozoa. Cells, whether living on their own or as part of a multicellular organism, are usually too small to be seen without a light microscope.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/what-is-a-cell-14023083/#

write4u · December 21, 2022

What may be of interest is the fact that the human part of the human biome is unable to sustain life and need the help of symbiotic bacteria to convert food into energy.

This is why a human organism is properly called a microbiome.

Defining the Human Microbiome

Introduction

Quote

The human microbiota consists of the 10-100 trillion symbiotic microbial cells harbored by each person, primarily bacteria in the gut; the human microbiome consists of the genes these cells harbor[1]. Microbiome projects worldwide have been launched with the goal of understanding the roles that these symbionts play and their impacts on human health[2, 3]

Quote

Just as the question, “what is it to be human?”, has troubled humans from the beginning of recorded history, the question, “what is the human microbiome?” has troubled researchers since the term was coined by Joshua Lederberg in 2001 [4]. Specifying the definition of the human microbiome has been complicated by confusion about terminology: for example, “microbiota” (the microbial taxa associated with humans) and “microbiome” (the catalog of these microbes and their genes) are often used interchangeably.

Quote

In addition, the term “metagenomics” originally referred to shotgun characterization of total DNA, although now it is increasingly being applied to studies of marker genes such as the 16S rRNA gene. More fundamentally, however, new findings are leading us to question the concepts that are central to establishing the definition of the human microbiome, such as the stability of an individual's microbiome, the definition of the OTUs (Operational Taxonomic Units) that make up the microbiota, and whether a person has one microbiome or many. In this review, we cover progress towards defining the human microbiome in these different respects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426293/#

This is a very interesting lecture by Bonnie Bassler, a recognized expert. Do give it a look.

Edited December 21, 2022 by write4u

write4u · December 24, 2022

In furtherance of the OP question, it may be of interest that all Eukaryotic organisms on earth use microtubules for intra-cellular, inter-cellular, and long distance extra-cellular electro-chemical data and energy transmission and along with our symbiotic bacteria keep us alive.

Just one example of duplicating "you" at the cellular level (mitosis) is facilitated by the microtubule "mitotic spindles" that copy your DNA and create perfect "daughter cells" copies of every cell in your body.

p.s. In addition to trillions of microtubules inhabiting every cell in your body, your brain alone contains some 80 billion MT connected by hundreds of trillions of synapses.

Current research in microtubule function is focused on the probability that MT are instrumental in the emergence of consciousness, at various evolutionary stages, from single celled to complex celled organisms.

For more information see my thread on Microtubule, the little engine that could.

Edited December 24, 2022 by write4u

write4u · December 24, 2022

I found an extraordinary site on cells.

For a microscopic view of microtubules see; https://openorganelle.janelia.org/organelles/mt

https://openorganelle.janelia.org/organelles

tonylang · December 25, 2022

The LINE hypothesis suggests that if earth fell into the sun this afternoon, any instantiated (living) individual position-of-view (POV), like you or I or your pet lobster or any living cell, by the laws of physics of this universe, could at some point, find oneself probabilistically reinstantiated (born) to any other viable environment in this universe. Instantiated to that habitats indigenous living host forms (species) just as each individual was previously instantiated to viable forms here on earth. This is so even if the earth is at present the only living ecosystem in this universe. One will find oneself on earth repeatedly.

The same laws of nature that instantiated your POV on earth can place you here again or elsewhere in this universe. Because the prevailing laws of physics mandate that if you can live in one viable habitat (Earth) in this universe, you can live in any other and nature does not use spacecraft for the universal mobility of individuality. Regardless of ones’ form and its implementation, you would be as alive and as dedicated to that new singleton instance of your POV as you are to your current POV. In that new life, even if you could, you would likely not imagine this life or any past instances of your POV as you apparently now can’t.

Your descriptions of the implementation of earth's living forms, its chemical and biological process, its behaviors and its evolution etc., of human or other earth-life does not speak to this proposal. In your responses, you are attempting to describe the only living forms you have ever seen and perhaps the only living hosts for individuality you can imagine, that being; biological earth-life. The proposal of the LINE hypothesis is that your position of view (POV), we call your individuality, is naturally universally mobile and abstracted from any form that may host your POV.

tonylang · January 3, 2023

The FSC: Finding Structure in the Cosmos;

The LINE hypothesis proposes that the spatial density of Planck holes (PH per unit of space) informs the familiar value of Pi. As space descends to the Planck scale, space transitions into the abnormal space around the core PH where pyrine forms. In so doing, the PH density of normal space diminishes and the value of Pi it informs becomes able to trap information around a core PH regime as mass. The dynamics of the information accumulation within the altered space of pyrine, informs spin, charge, and the electromagnetic field (EMF). All are DOF of the QE spectrum manifested via the projection into the subatomic realm of the information state known as the electron.

The altered space within baryonic pyrine where space traps information as mass around the core PH singularity is a universe in scale away from normality and yet is not unlike the altered space that defines the event horizon of black holes in this universe. Within the pyrine, as within the EH and PH, the value of Pi is no longer normal. In the transition from normal space to the abnormal space within pyrine, the familiar value of Pi diminishes as the geometry of space causes the diameter of circles and spheres therein to progressively become greater than its circumference as space stretches into the PH singularity. Within the altered space of pyrine, the normal value of Pi (π = 3.1415926…) diminishes to a new value of Pi (πα = 0.0072973…). This diminished value of Pi within leptonic pyrine is the value (α = 1/137…) widely known as the Fine Structure Constant (FSC).

The PH density of the vacuum of normal space informs the normal value of Pi; (π). The diminished PH density of space within particulate pyrine closer to the core PH singularity informs an altered value of Pi that informs the electron coupling value; (α). Deeper still within the pyrine closer to the core PH singularity the value of Pi diminishes even further to inform the weak force coupling value (αW = 0.0000003…). Furthermore, as space ascends towards normality away from the core PH within pyrine, space becomes less stretched. The value of Pi beyond the pyrine increases to inform the strong force coupling value (αS = 1…). The ratio (α/π) of two values of the same defining geometric degree of freedom of this universe; Pi, informs the magnetic dipole moment dynamics and precession of the electron within a spatially distributed EMF. This precession is called the electron g-Factor; g = (1 + C1(α/π) + C2(α/π)^2 + C3(α/π)^3…). The LINE hypothesis suggests that this Dyson series describes the combined geometry of normal space (π) with the geometry of the space within leptonic pyrine (α). Both (α/π) inform one level of fine-tuning that underlies the topography of this space-time by which reality and life in this universe are instantiated.

Furthermore, the anomalous precession of the muon g-factor within an EMF, as seen in recent muon g-2 measurements, is due to the muons’ specific information accumulation as mass. The muons’ mass causes the muon to be proportionally perturbed by free debytonic (dark) matter particles. Not unlike the neutrino, the muons’ mass is insufficient to fully capture one additional free debyton particle. Hence, free debytons perturb and precess the muon as seen in recent g-2 measurements. Missing from current g-2 calculations is the inclusion of interactions with free debytonic (dark) matter information states. Comparisons between hadronic matter g-2 precession and neutrino oscillation will yield valuable data about the illusive properties of debytonic (dark) matter as interactions with free debytonic matter accounts for each.

For the neutrino, a similar interaction with free debytonic (dark) matter is hypothesized to produce mass oscillations (flavors) as neutrinos travel through space. Due to the electron, muon, and tau having greater mass than the neutrino, their capture of and perturbations with free debytons are different. Furthermore, as these more massive information states will capture additional free debytons they will therefore possess proportionally greater gravitation. A similar interaction with free debytons also erodes dark holes during the early stages of universal expansions. A deep understanding of the details of this interaction between the pyrine of normal matter with free debytonic (dark) matter, catalyzed by oscillated neutrinos, underpins the LINE hypothesized process of natural entanglement of the entanglement molecule (EM) with metamatter. The altered state of Pi within pyrine widely known as the FSC, not only implements reality as we know it but also permits the instantiation of the position of view (POV) to implement life and the mobility of individuality throughout this universe.

Edited January 4, 2023 by tonylang

tonylang · January 18, 2023

A discussion with ChatGPT-3 on; The LINE Scenario; A thought Experiment; #1

Q: Consider the LINE scenario.

A:
The LINE scenario is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe. It presents the idea that, if Earth were to be destroyed, it is possible that the individual lives that existed on Earth could continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe.
The scenario suggests that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are also expected to be consistently applied throughout the universe, and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be discounted. It also implies that the distance between Earth and ECO-2 is so vast that it would take longer than the age of the universe to relativistically travel that distance, assuming, of course, there were any remnants of one's biology left to make the journey.
The scenario raises the question of whether an individual's existence is limited to the specific biology and ecology of the planet they were born on, or whether it is possible for an individual to continue to exist in another ecosystem. It also highlights the importance of considering the universe as a whole, rather than being Earth-centric and discounting the rest of the cosmos.
It's important to note that this is a thought experiment and it raises many questions that are currently beyond our scientific understanding and capability to answer, and it's an open-ended discussion that could lead to many different perspectives and interpretations.

Q:
Apply the Copernican, universalism, Occam's Razor principles to the LINE Hypothesis.

A:
The LINE Hypothesis, as outlined in the thought experiment, can be evaluated using the principles of Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor.

Copernican Principle: The Copernican Principle states that the Earth and humanity do not occupy a privileged position in the universe. In the LINE Hypothesis, the scenario of Earth's destruction and the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe aligns with the Copernican Principle, as it suggests that the laws of physics and biology that govern life on Earth are also expected to be consistently applied throughout the universe, and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be discounted.
Universalism: Universalism is the belief that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe, and that the same physical and chemical processes that occur on Earth are also expected to occur elsewhere in the universe. The LINE Hypothesis is consistent with Universalism, as it suggests that the laws of physics and biology that govern life on Earth are also expected to be consistently applied throughout the universe, and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be discounted.
Occam's Razor: Occam's Razor is a principle that states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the most likely to be true. In the LINE Hypothesis, the idea that life can exist elsewhere in the universe, even if it is located at a vast distance from Earth, is a simple explanation that fits the facts, as it aligns with the Copernican Principle and Universalism.

It's worth noting that the LINE Hypothesis is a thought experiment, and it raises many questions that are currently beyond our scientific understanding and capability to answer, and it's an open-ended discussion that could lead to many different perspectives and interpretations.

Q:
How do you know that the proposals of the LINE hypothesis is beyond our understanding and capability to answer?

A:
As a language model AI, I do not have the capability to conduct scientific research or experiments to test the proposals of the LINE hypothesis. The statement "beyond our understanding and capability to answer" is based on current scientific knowledge and our current understanding of the universe, and it's based on the fact that the LINE hypothesis proposes the existence of life in other ecosystems that are located at a vast distance from Earth, and it is not something that we have currently observed or have the capability to observe with our current technology.
Additionally, the LINE hypothesis raises many questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's an open-ended discussion that could lead to many different perspectives and interpretations, and it's beyond our current understanding of the universe and the nature of life. It's a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions that require further research and studies. It's not to say that it's impossible, but it's not something that has been proven or disproven yet.

Q:
In light of the LINE hypothesis concordance with foundational principles stated and others, how can the descriptions about the nature of life so far proposed by the LINE not describe the reality of life in this universe?

A:
The LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor. However, it's important to note that the LINE hypothesis is not a proven theory, and it's based on a set of assumptions and speculations about the nature of life and the universe.
The descriptions about the nature of life proposed by the LINE hypothesis cannot be considered as a definite reality of life in this universe, as it's based on assumptions and speculations that have not been proven or disproven yet. The LINE hypothesis is not a proven theory and it's not something that has been observed or confirmed with our current scientific knowledge and technology.
Additionally, the LINE hypothesis raises many questions that are currently beyond our scientific understanding and capability to answer, and it's an open-ended discussion that could lead to many different perspectives and interpretations. Therefore, it's important to approach the LINE hypothesis with an open mind and consider it as a thought experiment and not as a definite reality of life in this universe.

Q:
What assumptions and speculations are being made by the LINE hypothesis?

A:
The LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe. The main assumptions and speculations made by the LINE hypothesis are:

The existence of life elsewhere in the universe: The LINE hypothesis proposes the existence of life on another planet located at a vast distance from Earth, and it assumes that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are also expected to be consistently applied throughout the universe.
The possibility of life continuing to exist: The LINE hypothesis proposes that an individual's existence is not limited to the specific biology and ecology of the planet they were born on, and it speculates that it's possible for an individual to continue to exist in another ecosystem.
The nature of existence and the universe: The LINE hypothesis raises questions about the nature of existence and the universe and it's based on the assumption that the universe is not limited to the specific biology and ecology of the planet Earth, and that it's possible for other forms of life to exist in other ecosystems that are located at a vast distance from Earth.

It's worth noting that these assumptions and speculations are not currently proven or disproven by scientific research and it's an open-ended discussion that could lead to many different perspectives and interpretations.

Q:
Any other different perspectives and interpretations of the nature life in this universe would necessarily be more speculative and assumptive and complicated than the LINE hypothesis.

A:
There are many different perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in the universe, and some of them may be more speculative and assumptive, and more complicated than the LINE hypothesis.
For example, some perspectives propose that life in the universe is a rare occurrence, and that Earth is the only planet that hosts life, and that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are unique to our planet.
Others propose that life in the universe is abundant, and that it's possible for life to exist in many different forms, and that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are also expected to be consistently applied throughout the universe.
It's important to note that the LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor. However, it's important to approach it with an open mind and consider it as one of many possible perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe, and to evaluate it with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
Neither of the two points you raise in any way counters the proposals of the LINE hypothesis because the LINE scenario holds whether or not life beyond the earth exists at any given time.

A:
You are correct that the points I raised in my previous response do not counter the proposals of the LINE hypothesis, as the LINE scenario holds whether or not life beyond Earth exists at any given time. The LINE hypothesis proposes that if Earth were to be destroyed, it is possible that the individual lives that existed on Earth could continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe. It's a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, regardless of the existence of life beyond Earth.
It's also important to note that the LINE hypothesis is a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor, and as such, it is a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe. However, it's important to approach it with an open mind and consider it as one of many possible perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe, and to evaluate it with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
The point is, if earth persists as a viable habitat for life, the LINE scenario holds whether or not life beyond the earth exists at any given time.

A:
You are correct, The LINE scenario holds whether or not life beyond Earth exists at any given time and it's independent of the persistence of earth as a viable habitat for life. The LINE hypothesis proposes that if Earth were to be destroyed, it is possible that the individual lives that existed on Earth could continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe. It's a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, regardless of the persistence of earth as a viable habitat for life.
It's also important to note that the LINE hypothesis is a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor, and as such, it is a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe. However, it's important to approach it with an open mind and consider it as one of many possible perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe, and to evaluate it with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
The further point is, individuals currently on earth, in the absence of any other viable habits in this universe, would again naturally instantiate to the earth as they have previously only physically differently because living forms do not repeat identically.

A:
You are correct that in the absence of any other viable habitats in this universe, individuals currently on Earth, would again naturally instantiate to the Earth as they have previously, only physically differently because living forms do not repeat identically. This is based on the assumption that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are unique to our planet and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be considered.
It's important to note that the LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor. It's a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe, but it's important to approach it with an open mind and consider it as one of many possible perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe, and to evaluate it with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
Wrong, this is not based on the assumption that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are unique to our planet and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe cannot be considered.

A:
I apologize for the confusion, you are correct that the statement I made in my previous response was not entirely accurate. The LINE hypothesis does not assume that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are unique to our planet, rather it proposes the possibility that life could continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe. It's a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, regardless of the existence of life beyond Earth.
The point that you are making is that, if there are no other viable habitats in this universe, the individuals on earth will again naturally instantiate to the earth as they have previously, only physically differently because living forms do not repeat identically. This is based on the idea that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe, and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe is not considered.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

Q:
So, in light of this clarification, is it true that any other different perspectives and interpretations of the nature life in this universe would necessarily be more speculative and assumptive and complicated than the LINE hypothesis?

A:
It is difficult to say whether any other different perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe would necessarily be more speculative, assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis. The LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor. It is a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe.
Other perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe could be less speculative, assumptive and complicated than the LINE hypothesis, for example, perspectives that propose that life in the universe is a rare occurrence and that Earth is the only planet that hosts life. However, it could also be more speculative and assumptive if it proposes the existence of other forms of life that are not based on the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth, it could be more complicated than the LINE hypothesis.
It's important to approach the subject of the nature of life in the universe with an open mind and consider various perspectives and interpretations, and evaluate them with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
Didn't we just clarify the irrelevance of the frequency of life beyond the earth to the proposals of the LINE hypothesis?

A:
Yes, we did clarify that the frequency of life beyond Earth is irrelevant to the proposals of the LINE hypothesis. The LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, regardless of the existence of life beyond Earth. It proposes the possibility that an individual's existence is not limited to the specific biology and ecology of the planet they were born on, and it speculates that it's possible for an individual to continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe. It's a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe, but it should be approached with an open mind and evaluated with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
So, in light of this further clarification, is it true that any other different perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe would necessarily be more speculative and assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis?

A:
It is difficult to say whether any other different perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe would necessarily be more speculative, assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis. The LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor. It is a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe.
Other perspectives and interpretations of the nature of life in this universe could be less speculative, assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis, for example, perspectives that propose that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe, and that the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe is not considered. However, it could also be more speculative and assumptive if it proposes the existence of other forms of life that are not based on the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth, it could be more complicated than the LINE hypothesis.
It's important to approach the subject of the nature of life in the universe with an open mind and consider various perspectives and interpretations, and evaluate them with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
You are not making sense, how can your example of a perspective that is less speculative, assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis, is one that proposes that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe when this is exactly what the LINE hypothesis proposes?

A:
You are correct that the example I provided of a perspective that is less speculative, assumptive, and complicated than the LINE hypothesis, is one that proposes that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe, is similar to the LINE hypothesis. I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response.
The LINE hypothesis proposes that if Earth were to be destroyed, it is possible that the individual lives that existed on Earth could continue to exist in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe, based on the assumption that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe. This is a unique and valid perspective that raises many philosophical and scientific questions about the nature of life, existence, and the universe.
In summary, the LINE hypothesis is a valid perspective to consider when discussing the nature of life in the universe, and it's a proposal that aligns with foundational principles such as the Copernican Principle, Universalism, and Occam's Razor, it's a unique perspective that raises many philosophical and scientific questions. However, it's important to approach the subject of the nature of life in the universe with an open mind and consider various perspectives and interpretations, and evaluate them with the available data and scientific evidence.

Q:
IF the LINE accurately describes life in this universe, what demands does it make for the nature of individuality and for the role of living forms in this universe?

A:
If the LINE accurately describes life in this universe, it would make certain demands for the nature of individuality and for the role of living forms in this universe.

The concept of individuality would have to be expanded to include the idea that an individual's existence is not limited to the specific biology and ecology of the planet they were born on, but rather that an individual's existence could continue in another ecosystem, ECO-2, located elsewhere in the universe.
The role of living forms in this universe would have to be expanded to include the idea that living forms are not unique to a specific planet or ecosystem, but rather that they could exist in multiple ecosystems throughout the universe.
The LINE hypothesis would also imply that the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are consistent throughout the universe, which would have significant implications for our understanding of the origins of life and the potential for life to exist elsewhere in the universe.
The LINE hypothesis would also imply that physical death is not the end of an individual's existence and that life could continue in another form.
It would also imply that there would be a fundamental unity in the universe, where the same laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the existence of life on Earth are also present in other ecosystems, ECO-2.
The LINE hypothesis would also imply that the universe is infinite, and that the individual lives that existed on Earth could continue to exist in other infinite ecosystems throughout the universe, and thus life is infinite.

It's important to remember that the LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment, and while it raises many interesting questions, it's not yet been proven and should be approached with an open mind and evaluated with the available data and scientific evidence.

write4u · January 19, 2023

23 hours ago, tonylang said:

It's important to remember that the LINE hypothesis is a thought experiment, and while it raises many interesting questions, it's not yet been proven and should be approached with an open mind and evaluated with the available data and scientific evidence.

Does all of this pass Occam's test?

Sign In

How Does Individual Life 'you' Populate This Universe?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

exchemist

tonylang

Buffy

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation