a small selection of short excerpts from

1. The Elimination Of Emptiness - a short creation story

2. How did Emptiness count numbers? - quintessence of idleness

3. Mental leaps - time is redundant

4. Has time a direction? - what means time reversal?

5. Real or imaginary world?Does reality exist without observers? Depending on definition of 'reality': When the mere pattern of any kind whatsoever, produced howsoever by all existing particles, whatever
so called 'particle' means, shall represent the reality, then: definitely YES. But definitely
NO, when imagination of things, we observers have by our means of perception, is called reality.First-mentioned pattern-reality doesn't contain structures like 'round' spheres, 'straight' lines,
'massive' objects, ..., it doesn't distinguish hard and soft or free of mass, doesn't know heat, colours,
locomotion, velocity, ..., is neither dark nor bright, neither loud nor silent, ... does not know what is
cause, what effect, doesn't recognize any order or rule, not even 'physical variables', ..., but it works,
driven and determined by entities, only performing 'revolutions' and 'rotations', in a simple but fantastic
intertwining manner.No phenomenon that we observers find in our reality does exist, when not observed, but the pattern of any kind whatsoever continues to be even if there is no consciousness to observe. As
pattern the universe definitely does exist. However it has no properties without an observer, who is
able to describe these, respectively who can react on parts of the pattern in a definite way. (The
question does not deal with the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum theory, only touches it a little. But
a potential for discussion about that topic can be assumed.)The pattern in our image, our model, corresponds to the array of rotating horn tori, permanently
changing size and possibly rotation velocity while rolling along each other and along the common axis with
common circumferential speed. That sounds like a naive medieval clockwork-universe, where gear wheels
engage with each other, but remember: the model is nothing more than an aid to detect physical-geometric
analogies, only to associate the surely unimaginable reality with a mental image, matching into human
thought structure.We handle the three-dimensional space virtuosically and it seems reasonable, to use this virtuosity for the projection of not conceivable mechanisms into a frame we easily understand. But we always have to keep in mind that every description of natural laws is a simplifying model of reality. The universe(s)
doesn't (don't) have the restriction of human mental capability.close |

7. Dynamic geometry - renunciation of dimensionality

8. Spatial point - without dimensions - what in the world is that?

9. Analogies - dynamic geometry versus physical entities

10. Identifications - unrolling lines versus reference objects of physicists

11. Examples - a sneak peek as teaser

12. Dimensionality - not a physical term!

13. Gravitation and forces - intrinsic times and matter of rotation

14. Patterns and strings - of winding lines and tiny snippets

15. Metric - when dynamic processes induce discrete values

16. Grand unification - in plain common speech

all texts in one file as docx or as pdf

The horn torus, we discuss here, shall

Horn tori are not embedded in our three-dimensional world, but span a dynamic space of their own.

In the pure analogous model they only

as

so the good old Riemann sphere better should be replaced by the much more universal horn torus!

The horn torus model is not a consistent physical or mathematical theory.

Regard it as suggestion to leave fixed habits of conventional mainstream thinking now and then.

Playfully, just for fun! - Sometimes crackpot ideas inspire ...

The matter is intended to be an exciting game, to exercise imaginative power

and ability to think in abstract terms (helpful for understanding physics ;-)

mathematical rules exist 'all the time' since there is more than nothing

in other words: mathematical rules are involved in creating the universe

or: emerging of a mathematical rule is equivalent to well-known Big Bang

that code and mathematics in itself definitely are not inventions of humans -

we only have developed a complex language to describe simple preexisting laws!

we still are far away from seeing the simplicity in natural laws, but we know:

and it's impossible to comprehend laws of nature without playing the math game

mystic, spiritual and all esoteric reflections do not lead to true knowledge -

like it or lump it - so clear away the space-occupying rubbish in the brains!