hoola

if dark matter is showing it's existence with gravity effects, wouldn't it be drawn into a black hole along with everything else approaching it, being crushed into the primal constituents of whatever it is made of? If the majority of the universe is of dark matter rather than normal matter, wouldn't that mean black holes are accordingly composed primarily of dark matter?...

while I cannot place my vague ideas within a mathematical model, the logic seems to hold for now of the main structures. To me, they are least ridiculous explanation of "why anything", and will be happy to modify or replace them with a better explanation which seem less ridiculous than mine, and have math to support them...

I certainly hope that we have politics replaced by computers. I think we are in a race to save ourselves from the intellectual "bag of tricks we have been using to destroy our enviornment for short term advantage, with new governmental institutions controlled by computers with a long term global survival strategy algorithm at it's center. Foremost will be a reduction of human populations to 2 billion individuals worldwide. That alone would go a long way to reducing the CO2 issue, habitat destruction, and general repairing a planet that is simply overpopulated. It is obvious that governments are falling apart, and the scramble for diminishing resources will only get worse as the enviornment degrades. Due to economic and social forces, humanity simply doesn't have a chance to keep childbearing down to one child per person, or even better, no child per person, until the population get down to a sustainable level. It will have to be compelled to do so. Another new institution in the united states needs to be a "department of peace" to replace the so called department of "defense" that has become the emotional, economic and spirtual death of the west and is largely responsible for warmongering world-wide. This sentiment offered as the parting remark of the eisenhower administration, a republican administration...war is essentially incompatible with the enviornment, and is ingrained in human culture as a way of life...

I am sorry I can't sign the petition as I live in the US...

I am seeing a possible transmission of force information via the "froth" of virtual particles as a carrier of light and gravity forces, and allowing physical material movement. In other words, virtual particles make up space, which allow anything to move within it. The particles "hand off" to each other these things via mathematical descriptions being inputted-outputted during their brief appearances in the universe with influences upon their individual mathematical algorithms, as transmitted forces subtly alter their informational content. I see them as possible candidates, since they seem to be the smallest, most fine-grained "quasi-substance" known, and the "strings" of string theory as the information that gets shuttled around. Since my thinking revolves around the "everything is math" concept, it seems easy to see this, as a methodology of information transport, moving through the only thing smaller, lighter and more delicately composed than information itself, namely information that has a more fleeting existence...virtual particles...I see the strings of string theory as "strings of numbers" or math algorithms, and each "bit" of information of the algorithm being the smallest division within an informational set...which describes a particular force or particle...

as far as saying that virtual particle pairs are the "substance" of space goes, I only say that they seem to be real, as demonstrated by the casimir effect, have a possible physical effect upon the universe in a macro sense with dark energy expansion of the universe, and on a micro scale with allowing charge phenomena to modify the appearance/disappearances of the particle trajectories as a way of transporting phenomena information across space, whether that information be EM or G. I see a complication, with the necessary allowance needed by the dimensions to allow the process a volume to appear in, since the information would otherwise still be sequestered within the singularity. Therefore I see space as the particles doing the actual work of space in conjunction with the dimensions as "stretching" the singularity out to a universe sized volume to allow a macroscopic expression of the information that was previously developed within the microscopic singularity...

if our space is composed of particle/antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence, then a 50-50 equality of our space's component halves seems the kind of symmetry that would point to an equal chance that an anti-matter universe would have it's space composed of indentical parts... I see the "curving" of space-time as distortions in the paths of the virtual particles pairs after they appear, while in trajectory towards each other with resulting mutual destruction, allowing a weak leftover energy flux called dark energy. That distortion, taken to a violent degree as at the event horizon of a black hole, would separate the pair with enough distortion of the normal trajectory, they fly apart instead of re-converging, thus allowing hawking radiation...I understand this as reasonably accepted, but I see the virtual particle pairs as composing space itself, which is probably not an widely accepted view...(?)

Within an anti-matter universe an anti-space could consist of particle/antiparticle pairs, just as our universe does. It could have predominate anti-particle matter behaving as our matter particles do in a functional sense, to the extent that antimatter can form relationships similar to matter. Time, however would behave as normal, as I define time as any change of the informational state within a given region, so there is no reason to think a universe of predominate anti-matter would have any bearing on that issue. I don't know the specifics, but venture a guess that anti-matter has enough difference to regular matter to cause a proposed anti-universe to not mirror our universe, but that doesn't mean one couldn't exist. There could be other commonalities, such as gravity. Perhaps dark matter effects are from other universes with elsewise incompatible parameters, of either matter or antimatter. And photons are another possible commonality. I thought I read that they are their own anti-particle...(?)

when you say infinite as regards to density, doesn't that mean that the density is as high as can be allowed in this universe, and not defacto an incalculable number associated with it's value? And I have to think the volume is not "infinitely" small, only a small volume, perhaps a single point, but of some theoretical plank-sized minimum volume state... when infinities come through the door, logic goes out the window...

I can certainly see that there is no "infinite" gravity in the black hole, only a very high amount, and that there are no infinite anythings in the universe, as they seem to lead to break-downs in logic. I conclude there are no infinities even in math, and the physical universe is expressed in those limited mathematical terms, not simply measured by them.. I am a little curious as to the gravity of black holes....do they all have the same amount of gravity when measured at the event horizon? And if black holes are essentially "hitting the ceiling" on allowable gravity force in the natural universe, how is that force comparable to the gravity force of the original singularity that started everything? ..I have often heard of it referred to as having "infinite density and infinite gravity"....that seems an increasingly suspect idea if black holes along with other parameters of this universe are held to some finite limit...although is easy to think in a superficial manner that the singularity, while not being infinite, was of a greater density and gravity than the black holes that developed out of it later.....if the singularity did have a greater gravity/density force than is possible post inflation, could this be a reason for the one time only superluminality of the inflationary period? one last question as to black holes...I have heard about possible mini-black holes naturally occurring in the upper atmosphere or at cern. I presume that these holes have an event horizon, albeit briefly before they evaporate. Does theory predict that a gravity force measured at the event horizon of the mini holes equal the force of the larger and more stable hole event horizons, at the center of galaxies? In other words, would black holes of various sizes have symmetrical structure values, and only vary in externally measured horizon size? How massive must a black hole be before it becomes stable and escapes rapid evaporation? And, indeed, does the hole's gravity peak at the horizon, or closer to the center of mass? And what about the center of the singularity? Is it is a true point with a minimum of dimensions, that being one, or dimensionless, as I have heard it described? If it is on a specific point on a one dimensional line, then cannot it be considered to be located on a minimum finite fraction of a single dimension, since it cannot extend into the theoretical length on any of the lines that might describe it's allowable physical position?...

what about this "weak measurements" idea that I recently read about....in that a quantum state can be derived from an entangled particle without destroying the entanglement.....? I think I read it on Physics World a few months ago....And I am still curious of how inflation might have had a superluminal property, and if that is true, is it the one exception to the rule the universe now must abide?

I have heard this analogy that the planets warp or "dimples down" the space-time continuim. But there is no single "down" and there has to be at least a near infinite sets of "downs" at each point of the planet's surface, affecting space. This would lead to an even distortion of space, in the case of a non-rotating body, and with what I have heard of as "frame-dragging" if the body is rotating, with a gradient of max frame dragging at the equator, and a minimum at the poles. But, what is being distorted or "dragged" by the body? It seems to me that space is composed of the particle/antiparticle pairs and they are what is being distorted and/or dragged around. I see that gravity is information, the particles are information, and so they affect one another in the sense of changing their respective parameters, according to the relative strengths of the gravity force involved and to the degree that they can fundamentally react to one another. To me, it seems that the effects on space by gravity is due to mathematical changes of a given region, which are seen as a "distortion" in the case of the non-rotating body and "frame-dragged and distorted" in the case of a rotating body.....I agree that a single trampoline isn't a good analogy, unless you consider each point of a body having it's own trampoline intersecting it's surface at a right angle to the center or gravity, and those points creating a smooth surface surrounding the entire body....and that those points each describe the attendant distortion of space at that particular point in question... Then the analogy seems to make sense to me...edd.

Implicate Order.......as far as I can understand the two frames of reference, the differences are in perceptions of what is happening in black hole physics. So, to a remote observer, the shell of particles is detected coming from the event horizon. To an observer who has fallen into the hole, as the horizon is passed, the particles disappear, along with the outside world. That seems pretty understandable to me, but the event horizon still exists, and still is spitting out particles into the outside universe even though the observer is no longer in a position to verify it. I don't see any conflict here. As far as the outside observer, stationed at a safe orbit near the hole, the interior cannot be directly seen, but doesn't hawking say (after losing the bet) that the information of what fell inside would be conserved? If the information is conserved, then the particles coming out of the horizon should have some informational bearing on what fell into the hole that exists within the central mass. This seems to indicate that the interior can be observed from the outside universe, given the proper tools...if this is true, wouldn't the hole act as a recording device of sorts? It seems a sort of holographically encoded "picture" of the hole contents could be read from a distance to determine not only what had happened surrounding the hole since formation, but all the way up to the approach of the vehicle that does the probe....by reading the details of the hawking radiation. One possible issue is the factor of time stopping at the event horizon due to gravitational effects.... I don't think that is the case. I see time as slowed down and observed as a red shifting of the information's spectrum...this being due to the escaping particles being slightly outside the event horizon, and therefore time hasn't stopped completely, if it ever did at all, at any point in black hole physics. I see time as any change in the information content of a given region of space, and therefore, can be slowed, but not to zero. Even if one were to imagine the event horizon itself having the slowest rate of time in black hole dynamics, it wouldn't be zero, as the gravity forces acting through it would offer the required changes that would indicate a default minimum increment of time passage.....another odd issue to me is the singularity itself. Isn't is supposed to be a dimensionless point? And the diameter of the event horizon indicates the mass of the dimensionless point? If the point is "dimensionless" under what conditions must the information exist? In the strings of string theory that describe matter and energy? edd

You talk about the energy popping out of vacuum space in the 4th paragraph....I agree with this, and the question I raise is to how this happens. One idea is that somehow only matter flies out and antimatter flies in....at the event horizon. The other idea seems more likely to me, in that an equal amount of + and - matter goes in both directions, and the energy loss to the hole is strictly due to the energy required to separate the pair. Which idea do you see as more promising? Another problem I have with the idea of antimatter only entering the hole, is that the antimatter would be interacting with normal matter within the interior of the black hole. Wouldn't that in itself create a huge amount of energy? I have always heard that the most energetic energy source possible would be a matter/antimatter one......if I am thinking correctly, the interaction would not lower total energy, therefore mass.....it seems to me that either + or - matter falling in would be adding to mass, with the evaporation (hawking radiation) balanced against this..... this balance will determine if the black hole will evaporate or not. Perhaps the black hole obeys the conservation of energy law, and a stasis is reached, and an equivalent amount of energy is added to hole from infalling particles, that is subtracted from the hole to separate said particles. If true, wouldn't that weaken the idea of black hole evaporation?...edd

in lieu of a better answer, here is mine.....the expansion in the early universe is thought to be caused by the big bang and the subsequent inflation over-riding the initial gravity forces. Some literature predicts that the expansion did slow down until the dark energy totals began to halt the deceleration and cause a re-acceleration at about the mid-point of the age of the universe....with the dark energies increasing as the universe expands, this leads to an increasing rate of expansion as time goes on....edd

Implicate Order.....if the infalling particles are negative energy and the escaping particles near the event horizon are positive energy, leading to hawking radiation, what determines this ability for the negative energies and the positive energies to "know" which way to go? There must be some underlying reason for this classification to cause this case to be real. And, why would the high gravity of the black hole cause the particles to appear, which is inferred in the original dialogue with the "energy boost" of the hole? Seems to me they are everywhere and their appearances are not dependent on being next to a black hole horizon. This "energy boost", I would presume, is the work required to separate the two particles, and therefore a more likely candidate to explain hawking radiation. Statistically, a 50% probability of a matter or antimatter particle should be falling into the hole, leading to a zero sum of energies to both the black hole and the surrounding region. Regardless of which particle falls in or out, a fundamental and equal amount of work must be done to accomplish the task of separation......and that work can only come as a net loss of energy each time the process occurs from the black hole itself, using up a tiny bit of it's mass each separation in gravitational energy....I wonder if there is any work being done that would propose the amount of work required to separate the "conjoined twins" of casimir particles? If that could be determined, then a realistic prediction of how long a black hole of a particular mass will last, once it runs out of fuel, if indeed the underlying process is as I propose.....edd

interesting to read about tar's "consciousness not being such a hard problem"...I have been thinking that consciousness is a result of the 3 lobes of the brain, reptilian, mammalian and human being in tension as each attempts dominance over the other. This "tension" allows new and enhanced functions of advanced awareness neural pathways to develop within the brain, leading to the somewhat illusory thing called consciousness. This also may explain some psychological illnesses as the brain stresses if the internal struggle is not kept in check by internal hormonal feedback circuitry. Beyond a certain point of stress, the internal feedback circuits fail and illness ensues. This tension is partially a result of the brain simply outgrowing it's nutrient supply, each domain competing for blood and glucose as overall brain mass increases. This I think is the root of the rather jealous nature of each domain, simply needing what it takes to function. The "self" is the internal communications, running to and fro down the neural pathways, keeping the competition down to a reasonable level, as all three are required for a human life to continue existence. Certainly more than crude nutrient/oxygen needs are causing this proposed tension. As the intellect can observe the other two brains reacting to enviornmental situations with a more primitive assessment of a given situation, a sort of extra stress is induced by the more primitive brains as their evolutionarily older "tried and true" reaction/decisions are vetoed by the intellect. I wrote before about the "3 bodies" orbiting problem being a further analogy to the 3 brains. With only two bodies orbiting, they have regular, predictable orbits. With three, predictibility is lost quickly. I think the same thing happens with the humans having 3 brains "in tension", and perhaps why humans are inherently unstable organisms in constant need of "internal fine tuning" to mediate each of the 3 lobes into a sort of begrudging truce. .....I further see the 3 brains being internally identified by the intellect as the Spiritual, Moral, and Human....edd

can't edit spelling mistake on previous post as edit button is missing. I meant to say in last sentence, .... that the mind would affect the geomagnetic force, than the other way around.....edd (I thought the edit feature lasted more than 1 day..?)

I have imagined a process that could underly some aspects of human life that seems original....that concerns telepathy and other odd psychological artifacts. I propose that consciousness or "heighted awareness" is a defacto "fifth force" manifest upon on the local universe. I say that the force acts not as a new force, but within the bounds of affecting the basic "real" forces. Since the effects are (usually) transient and not well understood, no formal parameter structure is allowed, and vary from individual to individual. This is why such psi experiments will remain unprovable, other than beating the odds on certain tests on certain days by certain individuals. This is an extrapolation of the heisenberg observer affecting the experiment principle, as thinking is basically an experiment, and our perception gives a pos/neg feedback loop to alter reality so as change our observations subtly from what is actually there. While this all takes place in our heads, it is still under the rubric of "information as reality" idea. So, to say that something is "only in my head" and doesn't affect any observed phenomena, is largely true, but not always, depending on the individual mind in question. From this, I further see that geomagnetic activity is too weak to affect any possible psi artifact. The psi feature of advance intelligence is largely a form of self-hypnosis, and more affected by normal human conditions such as room temperature, stress levels, even biorithms (mood). It would be more likely, in my scenario, that the mind would affect the geomagnetic force, that than the other way around...edd

I think the topic of "something going wrong" is a basic tenet of the evolutionary process. If things in general weren't going wrong on a small scale on a continuous basis, and a large scale on an intermittent basis, would early life on earth have evolved to higher life forms? Evolution only happens when life is made uncomfortable enough to weed out those individuals without the necessary mutations to survive a particular change in the enviornment, as compared to other individuals that perish as a result of not having that adaptability. So, I see an intellectual basis of your analysis of your proposal, but that the attendant effects of "murphy law" is in effect, the tough love of the unseen hand of evolution. In the early bacteria the changes were more about changes in sea salinity, food availability, sunlight or other energy requirements. We still have the same principles of enviornmental stressors affecting us to adapt. We now have the intellectual capability of hanging a label on a portion of the process, this "murphy's law", which is a sub-set of the forces of evolution. This is how I can accept all the terrible things that happen in the world to us humans, if the world wasn't a terrible place, I would still be sitting in a warm tidal pool happily digesting complex organic molecules as a blue-green algae...instead of sitting here and writing about my lousy luck with recent endeavors (trying to buy a house out of state) being not only understandable, but a necessary component to the development of sentience on this planet, or perhaps any planet. So, is murphys law a universal law affecting the entire universe? Since other parameters such as particle masses and gravity seems to be the same everywhere, it is logical to think that anywhere higher life exists, it came about as primitive life having a "sweet spot" planet with enough stressors to cause evolution, but not so much as to cause extinction. So, this "murphy's law" can only described by beings subject to it's loving bloody hand....edd

if you consider space as a "plasticine", and finite, there is no reason to think it can't "stretch" without breaking. If space is basically described by dark energy, then energy is constantly being added with the expansion of space. So, density will remain the same, on average. If space is finite, then one might consider it as heading towards the infinite in volume, but never getting there. Only attaining the size allowable with the amount of time it has existed, and always limited by the time it has to grow until a potential end to it's existence might occur due to some fundamental limitation built into it from the start. I see these possible limitations emanating from the mathematics of reality or the logic that allows structure to the maths. It does seem likely that space stretches in the vicinity of a black hole horizon event, with one component of the dark energy (or virtual particle half) falling in and one escaping, giving us the hawking radiation...that seems about as "stretched" as space can get. I do however see a form of intelligence in the complexities of math, and we are those complexities expressed within the universe. I think our ability for high awareness is a "real time" evolution of the basics building blocks of reality. Those being the maths, the logic that supports the maths, and the chaos that allowed logic to develop....edd

if the visible matter is making up 5% of this universe, perhaps the extra gravity from dark matter can be accounted by the existence of other universes each contributing a roughly equal amount of gravity force, making up the balance of the total gravitational effects observed. This would tend to infer a finite number of co-universes only interacting gravitationally, but otherwise ignoring one another....It seems possible that there are other commonalities to look for, and gravity is the most obvious one...the latest pictures of the "dark matter" threads as lensed by the quasar are fantastic.....edd

David..I think if we want a true TOE, we have to take mathematics as an occurrence, but only as a required output from the underlying logic. Unless you want to consider something as "eternal" or a steady-state, or given by "god" fully formed, then things such as math and logic, which are so obvious they become the last of the "elephants in the room" to be seen, have to be considered as "things" just as other physical phenomena have been. Identifying the obvious stuff such as masses of particles and the nature of light requires a further "breaking down" of the constituent parts of these phenomena, into the parts themselves, those parts being the maths...and then breaking down the maths.....why consider them sacrosanct, and beyond "the grace of the gods and will of the king" to do so..? If math is the foundation of the all, what is the foundation of maths? I believe there is an answer to the question. Providing a most logical block diagram of a flow chart of how this could have happened, will have to do for now.../.....The idea of more than one universe does take some getting used to, but if that is the truth, seems we have to "like it" as our universe's existence may depend upon the existence of some other universe or universes, in order for any universe to exist. I rebelled at the idea when I first heard about it too...it seems to add complexity to our situation which seems quite complex enough already...who needs another universe to consider in the day-to-day musings on what kind of enviornment this universe really is...but to me, the detection of dark matter was the salient point that eventually swayed my thinking. Now, I like the idea of other universes, but draw the line at a finite number of them...I don't like the idea of a doppelganger doing a repeat of my life in the "infinite universes model"...that seems to indicate a loss of uniqueness to my life. With my ideas on how the universe got started, I see a line of reasoning that there are a finite number of universes, and a finite number of "things" within each universe. The only "infinite" thing I consider is the "chaos" and that is the one special case..../....free will is what defines a conscious being, if you are conscious, you have free will..thinking is the ultimate act of manipulation of data.../....as far as "controlling space with our minds", we do have a limited capacity to do so now. We can move a pile of books from one side of the self to the other....of course, I presume you are describing something a little more outlandish than that, such as the heisenberg principle of observer effects on experiment....In that case. such things such as whether a photon shows up as wave or particle in the 2 slit experiment is good example of how consciousness (or logic) and the observer effect has a real meaning. I think the presence of logic in the experiment, by the observer, is the key, not the fact that the observer was human, or had a pre-set desire to see one particular outcome over the other. I say, this is a reveal that logic itself it a fundamental force, and needs to be further addressed as a thing, with a eye towards seeing if it can be a describable "thing", and that this "thing" described the maths, which describes us...I have a mod on the anthropromorphic model of "the universe couldn't exist without intelligent life in it", with a partial agreement. I say, this or any universe cannot exist without the presence of logic within it....and logic itself is not alive, and certainly not intelligent, but is the foundation of everything including intelligence. We are the icing on the cake, but not required for the cake to exist....edd

I read your entry with interest, I see evidence that "math is all", however predictability seems less than likely. I say, math is all, but math is an evolutionary process, that it had a beginning, middle and possible end, and what we see is a result of the process as it stands today. Since the "wheel still in spin" is allowing changes to occur, I see a fundamental barrier to predict any future outcome within the universe. Randomness of the quantum will always shade a perfect outcome to becoming a bracketed guestimate. Someone may come along and figure out a precise algorithm and be able to assure compete prediction, which would be a return to classical physics in gross bodies. But what about human beings? We are a manifestation of maths too, if everything else is...with that knowledge combined with free will, we could see what we would be doing in the future. And we could 'mess" with that outcome, doing something opposite of what math would have predicted we do....that is but one example of the impossibilites surrounding predictibility. If mathematics can develop "free will", as through us, then a crude relation can be drawn between the complexities of the human mind and the "3 bodies orbiting" issue. You state that the universe is a mathematical model "bounded only by itself".... If math spontaneously arose, in full complexities, I could see you saying that...but from whence did math come from? One must consider that, if indeed math arose from some less complex format, (logic) then that this pre-formal math must have come from something else (chaos), so there may be many more "players" in the field than a lone mathematical figure, and those other players may still have some direct bearing on the outcome of the game...unseen, but within the sphere of influence....edd the heading reads "an investigation into the mechanics of gravity and dark energy"....I see a possible relationship between dark matter and gravity.....and see dark energy as a more obvious form of the "wheel in spin"...and how the maths "do work"...while the commonality of gravity forces between dark matter and our universe tends to suggest another universe or universes co-exists with ours, having no (obvious) physical relation to our universe, except that particular feature...edd

yes, the number 13 was born, but that is late in the process, that is a result of the geometry of the point. I'd rather talk about chaos....(.basics first .).... I say there is nothing in the chaos but degenerate information.....if I said there was "nothing" there, or left that impression, I am sorry... I will have to re-read the whole thing to be sure. But let me state what I feel now about the issues as it is an on-going thing and subject to mods and re-statements of previous postulations....OK....now, the chaos has information that has a predominant instability (lack of logic), so as to prevent any information within having any long term relationships with each other, as the information, which I see as theoretical "bits" having only randomly occurring appearances and properties, even in the realm of the theoretical. As you see, I have begun to segment out the concept of "theoretical" into 3 basic parts. 1. quasi-theoretical 2. transitional - T. 3. formal T. In the case of the chaos, there is the smooth randomness of complete entropy(quasi-T), as the "particles" ( as they can be thought of), but they're really only theoretical "bits" with no values, but, lets consider them for the sake of illustration that they are particles. First, what is entropy in particles in our universe? It is a reduction to the minimum energy state of a particular particle, if my understanding is correct. What can now be said about this particle? It is still a particle, with a measurable mass, charge and spin.......Now consider the chaos with it's "particles" at complete entropy....they are at their lowest energy level, but also have no measurable mass, charge, spin....not that they don't have any, but they are in constant flux, faster than can allow enough stability within the chaos for an identifiable label to affixed to any point within it....so the quasi-T is the chaos, the formal-T is the interior of the "logic bubble" and the transitional-T is the perimeter surface, where the real work gets done in conversion of chaos's quasi-T to formal-T.....this process is perhaps a catalytic one, vaguely similar to a quartz crystal developing its ordered geometry(more logical) from an amorphous raw material supply (less logically arranged atoms) , I have no serious thinkings yet I will offer on why this is occurs in the transit-T stage. I am interested in thinking about certain aspects of the transit-T. stage, in that , if the chaos bits are there and have a high frequency of variations in their values, then all that needs to be accomplished is to slow down that change to a reasonable lower frequency of change, so mathematical (or force) relationships can be formed. So, it only seems a matter of figuring out how the frequency lowering or "freezing out" the particular contents is required. This seem to indicate that the material is in a super-hot state, and the parameter shifts keep "linkages" between partners from happening......but that is only a rough analogy to a familiar condition...anyway, how "slow" must this speed be in order to allow interactions? If we look at the universe, things do change on their own, with weak radioactivity, proton decay, and related (you probably know more examples than I ) so, one might say that even in our "formal logic-driven" world, parameters do change spontaneously....so there is some handle to start thinking about the "speeds of default change" within our universe, on average, vs. the speeds of change within the chaos, on average....since radioactive decay seems such a easy analogy to what I am referring to, it is tempting to think they are somehow related, in that the frequency of random parameter shifts in the chaos was lowered, but never reached zero....as evidenced by spontaneous decays within our universe..as a hold-over from pre bang...things are still "breaking down" but a vastly slower rate.....edd I am considering the "break-down" transition period in which a change occurs, similar to the shift of an electron in the valence order of an atom...isn't that supposed to be an instant transition period? That is the rate of changes I am talking about when I say that the possible values of the chaos are always changing....the rate is an equivalent speed as to the electron's shuffling atomic levels....I say the speed is not instantaneous, but much faster than measurable, and that same speed seems to show up in straight line gravity effects and entanglement failure with it's spooky action at a distance...also, the proposed speed of inflation....edd