History's Rounded, Rounding, Wheel of Space and Time and Vortex-like Contents

[Atlan0001]

Stephen Hawking lamented the formal division of philosophy and physics during the 19th and 20th centuries, that it should never have happened. Informally, of course, it has never happened as such physicists as Einstein and Hawking tend heavily to also being philosophers within and of their own field of endeavor. So, too, the other way around for such philosophers as Bertrand Russell. And, inclusively, such famous historians as Will Durant and others like him throughout history getting involved heavily into the gamut of general physics, cosmologies, and philosophies.

One big and obvious mistake made, as I see it, is the attempt during the 19th and 20th centuries, on into the 21st century, to straighten out the arrow of space and time, doing away with a long, long, history of the rounded, and rounding, wheel (including the wheels within wheels, and wheels paralleling) of space and time. Doing away with the bend of the wheel regarding seemingly everything of space and time but the bends and vortices of gravity. Thus, no straight arrows to the universe except for one, the one up and out and down and in into infinity and infinities. Hawking once wrote of the possibility of the constant migration of life from the death zones of universe to the ever new born "life zones" of universe in the rounding wheel and wheels of universes, thus there being a fundamental 'life force' to the universe to go along with the other fundamental forces. He had a tendency toward optimism in the possibilities, it seemed to me, always mixing with an equal but opposite tendency toward dark pessimism.

It is as easy for me to envision the wheel turning, and the wheels within wheels and wheels paralleling wheels, turning, all the arrows either bending to gravity or being bent by gravity, as it is for others to envision the exact opposite, there being no historically related wheel, no wheels, turning of space and time.

If there is no infinity, no infinities infinite and infinitesimal, actually one and the same barring finite, the finite wheels might adhere to finite and all stop turning, but the problem the adherents of nothing but finites existing is there is infinity, and infinities, existing (even those infinities within all finites . . . finite always being local relative, infinity the nonlocal, non-relative, absolute always).

 

[(Q)]

Stephen Hawking lamented the formal division of philosophy and physics during the 19th and 20th centuries, that it should never have happened.

Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space.

Hawking contra Philosophy | Issue 82 | Philosophy Now

Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence.

philosophynow.org

 

[Atlan0001]

Ah, for the philosophy of physics and, especially, cosmology. Another new/old entry into cosmology:

What if the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning? Our research suggests it may have taken place inside a black hole

New theory makes testable predictions.

theconversation.com

A Big Crunch to singularity and a Big Bang from it, all of it all at once. The whole thing spacelessly and timelessly always at once.. Crunching eternally, banging eternally.

I wouldn't look for this particular point of singularity's location, though, because the whole horizon universe, and all the infinities of horizon universes, is this particular point of singularity. It will be anywhere and everywhere. The seed is in the tree . . . the tree is in the seed . . . always.

I interpret the reference article I give above to mean that that crunch, the whole of it, outside in to infinity at once turns inside out, the whole of it, inside out to infinity. If you really think about it, you can see it, follow it through accelerating in expansion in accelerating opening out within (the crunch at once the bang as well). You can see what I mean about: "The seed is in the tree . . . the tree is in the seed . . . always." The crunch is in the bang, the bang in the crunch, at once and always.

The wheel of space and time, also, rounding to, rounding into, itself. The rings of wheels within wheels (and paralleling in parallelism) to, and into, themselves.

 

[Atlan0001]

All for one! One for all! All in one! One in all!

1.) Uni-: One: Unity.
2.) Verse: Turn: To turn: Re-turn.
3.) Universe: One turn: The turning of countless many turns.
4.) Multiverse: Multiple verses and/or multiple turns in and of circles circling rim and hub and spokes (wheels circling from the thousands of years of the ancients until the modern, the lazy, thought of straightening out a naked-singularity of "arrow of time").
5.) So to speak, multi-ring parallelism and one ring to rule them all.
6.) Collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC/BB) Horizon . . . the infinite point/infinity of points (infinite 0-point / infinity of 0-points) of singularity. The same horizon at the same distance of endless beginning anywhere and everywhere, any-when and every-when, resident or visited.
7.) Universe / universes to infinity in the instant of a hub 0-point NOW. From the outside in a black hole, from the inside out an accelerating expansion of opening system. All those infinitely many black holes in space and time, "All for one! One for all! All in one! One in all!"

 

[Killjoy]

Stephen Hawking lamented the formal division of philosophy and physics during the 19th and 20th centuries, that it should never have happened. Informally, of course, it has never happened as such physicists as Einstein and Hawking tend heavily to also being philosophers within and of their own field of endeavor. So, too, the other way around for such philosophers as Bertrand Russell. And, inclusively, such famous historians as Will Durant and others like him throughout history getting involved heavily into the gamut of general physics, cosmologies, and philosophies.

One big and obvious mistake made, as I see it, is the attempt during the 19th and 20th centuries, on into the 21st century, to straighten out the arrow of space and time, doing away with a long, long, history of the rounded, and rounding, wheel (including the wheels within wheels, and wheels paralleling) of space and time. Doing away with the bend of the wheel regarding seemingly everything of space and time but the bends and vortices of gravity. Thus, no straight arrows to the universe except for one, the one up and out and down and in into infinity and infinities. Hawking once wrote of the possibility of the constant migration of life from the death zones of universe to the ever new born "life zones" of universe in the rounding wheel and wheels of universes, thus there being a fundamental 'life force' to the universe to go along with the other fundamental forces. He had a tendency toward optimism in the possibilities, it seemed to me, always mixing with an equal but opposite tendency toward dark pessimism.

It is as easy for me to envision the wheel turning, and the wheels within wheels and wheels paralleling wheels, turning, all the arrows either bending to gravity or being bent by gravity, as it is for others to envision the exact opposite, there being no historically related wheel, no wheels, turning of space and time.

If there is no infinity, no infinities infinite and infinitesimal, actually one and the same barring finite, the finite wheels might adhere to finite and all stop turning, but the problem the adherents of nothing but finites existing is there is infinity, and infinities, existing (even those infinities within all finites . . . finite always being local relative, infinity the nonlocal, non-relative, absolute always).

Oh, yeah...
Needs a title.
"Within Ezekiel "?

It is as easy for me to envision the wheel turning,
If there is no infinity.
And the wheels within wheels and wheels paralleling wheels,,
No infinities infinite and infinitesimal.
All the arrows either bending to gravity or being bent by gravity,
The finite wheels might adhere to finite and all stop turning.
As it is for others to envision the exact opposite,
But the problem the adherents of nothing but finites existing is there is infinity.
There being no historically related wheel,
And infinities, existing.
No wheels, turning of space and time,
(even those infinities within all finites . . . finite always being local relative, infinity the nonlocal, non-relative, absolute always).

 

[exchemist]

Stephen Hawking recently fluttered the academic dovecotes by writing in his new book The Grand Design – and repeating to an eager company of interviewers and journalists – that philosophy as practised nowadays is a waste of time and philosophers a waste of space.

Hawking contra Philosophy | Issue 82 | Philosophy Now

Christopher Norris presents a case for the defence.

philosophynow.org

The article you quote, which dates from 2011, is interesting. It is in fact devoted to pointing out why Hawking was wrong to dismiss philosophy in the way he did.

The writer, Prof. Christopher Norris of Cardiff University, makes a similar criticism of certain kinds of scientific speculation as Jim Baggott does in “Farewell to “Reality”, and which I have also come across from Massimo Pigliucci and Peter Woit . String theory is the classic example. It has become a self-sustaining cottage industry that has yet to make a single empirically testable prediction, in spite of decades of gestation.

Some of Hawking’s work arguably falls into this category, which is no doubt why he was hostile to criticism of it from philosophical quarters. The mere fact that it has -as Hawking was saying - become the way certain kinds of theoretical science are now done is not a good counterargument to those who point out this type of science has seemingly gone off the rails.

Personally, I’m with Baggott, Pigliucci and Woit, and I think Norris has a good argument that philosophy of science remains an important discipline to help guide the progress of science.

(Hawking’s status as a guru seems to me to be partly due to his physical disabilities. He was an eminent theoretical scientist of course, but not another Einstein and not a Nobel prizewinner. I sometimes think he has been put on a pedestal by the media in a way that goes beyond what is really justified.)

 

[Atlan0001]

Adding to post #4:

We don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe.

Because I don't see it or describe it exactly as some here do, I'm told I'm nothing but a weirdo dealing in nonsense, word salads (instead of so much math salad and salads (and it is "salad" and "salads"), and pseudoscience, if even that!

I suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more articles dealing in the [defiance of known physics!]

Do the people here on this website even know why (WHY) there are wars going on, and wars nearly to the point of going on, all over the world?!?! That there are differences, utterly incompatible differences, going so far as [matter humans] and [anti-matter humans] oppositely charged, that cannot possibly live on the ever shrinking spacetime of the same planet (cannot live in the same local relative universe)!!!!

 

[Killjoy]

Do the people here on this website even know why (WHY) there are wars going on, and wars nearly to the point of going on, all over the world?!?!

Certain monkeys started to think, and the world's been going tits up ever since...

 

[Atlan0001]

Einstein could zero dimensions to a 0-point singularity, as I've chronicled in at least one of his mind's eye illustrations. Hawking could zero dimensions to a 0-point singularity, as I've chronicled in at least one of his illustrations (his one of a kind clock, and the clock time, centering his "Grand Central Station of Universe"). I can zero four dimensions a to 0-point singularity with a voluminous 4-dimensionality ("spacetime by volume" singularity), as I've chronicled concerning my object "coffee mug," among other objects like molecular bits and less, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on universes, But at least two people here have no capacity of mind, whatsoever, to reach up to zero out dimensions to a dimensionless, 0-dimensionality of singularity. I don't think they've ever read the book, 'Chaos', by James Gleick. Or could understand Chaos' alternation of orders of complexity and chaos even they could read. Some people are floodlights. Others laser beams. Still others . . . just dim. I've been a life long protector of the dim individual, except for dimwits!

 

[James R]

Stephen Hawking lamented the formal division of philosophy and physics during the 19th and 20th centuries, that it should never have happened.

Where did Hawking do that?

One big and obvious mistake made, as I see it, is the attempt during the 19th and 20th centuries, on into the 21st century, to straighten out the arrow of space and time, doing away with a long, long, history of the rounded, and rounding, wheel (including the wheels within wheels, and wheels paralleling) of space and time.

What do you mean? What philosophies are you thinking of, here?

Or are you trying to talk about scientific ideas here? That kind of thing might be better suited to the Science sections.

Doing away with the bend of the wheel regarding seemingly everything of space and time but the bends and vortices of gravity. Thus, no straight arrows to the universe except for one, the one up and out and down and in into infinity and infinities.

What are you talking about?

Hawking once wrote of the possibility of the constant migration of life from the death zones of universe to the ever new born "life zones" of universe in the rounding wheel and wheels of universes, thus there being a fundamental 'life force' to the universe to go along with the other fundamental forces.

Where did Hawking once write about that?

It is as easy for me to envision the wheel turning, and the wheels within wheels and wheels paralleling wheels, turning, all the arrows either bending to gravity or being bent by gravity, as it is for others to envision the exact opposite, there being no historically related wheel, no wheels, turning of space and time.

Good for you!

If there is no infinity, no infinities infinite and infinitesimal, actually one and the same barring finite, the finite wheels might adhere to finite and all stop turning, but the problem the adherents of nothing but finites existing is there is infinity, and infinities, existing (even those infinities within all finites . . . finite always being local relative, infinity the nonlocal, non-relative, absolute always).

I think you lost track of what you were trying to say, somewhere in the middle of that convoluted sentence.

 

[James R]

Ah, for the philosophy of physics and, especially, cosmology. Another new/old entry into cosmology:

What if the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning? Our research suggests it may have taken place inside a black hole

New theory makes testable predictions.

theconversation.com

A Big Crunch to singularity and a Big Bang from it, all of it all at once. The whole thing spacelessly and timelessly always at once.. Crunching eternally, banging eternally.

I wouldn't look for this particular point of singularity's location, though, because the whole horizon universe, and all the infinities of horizon universes, is this particular point of singularity. It will be anywhere and everywhere. The seed is in the tree . . . the tree is in the seed . . . always.

I interpret the reference article I give above to mean that that crunch, the whole of it, outside in to infinity at once turns inside out, the whole of it, inside out to infinity. If you really think about it, you can see it, follow it through accelerating in expansion in accelerating opening out within (the crunch at once the bang as well). You can see what I mean about: "The seed is in the tree . . . the tree is in the seed . . . always." The crunch is in the bang, the bang in the crunch, at once and always.

The wheel of space and time, also, rounding to, rounding into, itself. The rings of wheels within wheels (and paralleling in parallelism) to, and into, themselves.

This sounds more like science than philosophy.

 

[James R]

All for one! One for all! All in one! One in all!

1.) Uni-: One: Unity.
2.) Verse: Turn: To turn: Re-turn.
3.) Universe: One turn: The turning of countless many turns.
4.) Multiverse: Multiple verses and/or multiple turns in and of circles circling rim and hub and spokes (wheels circling from the thousands of years of the ancients until the modern, the lazy, thought of straightening out a naked-singularity of "arrow of time").
5.) So to speak, multi-ring parallelism and one ring to rule them all.
6.) Collapsed cosmological constant Planck (BC/BB) Horizon . . . the infinite point/infinity of points (infinite 0-point / infinity of 0-points) of singularity. The same horizon at the same distance of endless beginning anywhere and everywhere, any-when and every-when, resident or visited.
7.) Universe / universes to infinity in the instant of a hub 0-point NOW. From the outside in a black hole, from the inside out an accelerating expansion of opening system. All those infinitely many black holes in space and time, "All for one! One for all! All in one! One in all!"

You're babbling.

 

[James R]

Adding to post #4:

Adding to the babble?

We don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe.

Err... yes we do.

Because I don't see it or describe it exactly as some here do, I'm told I'm nothing but a weirdo dealing in nonsense, word salads (instead of so much math salad and salads (and it is "salad" and "salads"), and pseudoscience, if even that!

That's not why you're told that.

I suppose I in my weirdness, dealing in nothing but nonsense, word salads, and so on, will have to start finding more articles dealing in the [defiance of known physics!]

Try to find ones that make sense.

Do the people here on this website even know why (WHY) there are wars going on, and wars nearly to the point of going on, all over the world?!?!

That doesn't sound like a philosophical question. Perhaps try the "About the Members" subforum. Or "Free thoughts". Or "World Events". Or even, perhaps, "Politics".

I think you'll find that many people here on this website know why (WHY) there are wars going on.

That there are differences, utterly incompatible differences, going so far as [matter humans] and [anti-matter humans] oppositely charged, that cannot possibly live on the ever shrinking spacetime of the same planet (cannot live in the same local relative universe)!!!!

No, I don't think that's the reason.

 

[James R]

Einstein could zero dimensions to a 0-point singularity, as I've chronicled in at least one of his mind's eye illustrations.

That is not a sentence.

Hawking could zero dimensions to a 0-point singularity, as I've chronicled in at least one of his illustrations (his one of a kind clock, and the clock time, centering his "Grand Central Station of Universe").

Neither is that.

I can zero four dimensions a to 0-point singularity with a voluminous 4-dimensionality ("spacetime by volume" singularity), as I've chronicled concerning my object "coffee mug," among other objects like molecular bits and less, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on universes,

Or that. You seem to have left out some auxiliary verbs.

But at least two people here have no capacity of mind, whatsoever, to reach up to zero out dimensions to a dimensionless, 0-dimensionality of singularity.

Are you one of the two?

I don't think they've ever read the book, 'Chaos', by James Gleick.

I've read it. It doesn't mention zero dimensions or 0-point singularities, as far as I can recall.

Who are you referring to?

Or could understand Chaos' alternation of orders of complexity and chaos even they could read.

Maybe you should ask them directly, whoever they are, rather than making assumptions that might well be incorrect.

Some people are floodlights.

I don't think so. Is this a metaphor?

Others laser beams. Still others . . . just dim.

Are you a floodlight or just dim?

I've been a life long protector of the dim individual, except for dimwits!

Er... okay. So what?