It takes a blind eye and utter mindlessness not to see geometric shapes and forms to the universe's space and time at large and to fundamental forces and their fields. Yet I've been attacked in little more than simply the foulest of language for attempting to _link_ the whole together per the basic geometric shapes and forms that whole obviously takes.   Gravity, as we see in the universe, obviously takes final flat form, final surface shape. Solar systems, vast majority of galaxies, so-called singularities' event horizons all basicly flatten out and appear as surface. Not only that we know from both observation and experience that we are dealing in string-like curvature concerning gravitational fields (experience in trying to get out of one and in orbits). No matter what the orbit, we are still dealing in the flat surface-likeness and spatial-curvature of gravitational field and force.   When astronomers and cosmologists tell us they see the space of the universe as being flat surface-like in every direction out from Earth, they are witnessing the fundamental shape and form of the gravitational field and force of the observable universe. Why would they not? Fundamentally, gravity equals space, equals surface, equals mass, equals the even more fundamental 1-dimensional string (_base_ of the fundamentals listed), and curvature, in and of the universe.   But gravity is not the sole fundamental field and force that we see to take on geometric shape and form, obviously so. Electro-trinity particles take on spherical-volume shape to us, as does the Earth's magnetic field, the Sun and so on all up and down the line. Time takes on straight-line radial form, obviously so, in every direction of spherical-volume out from a 0-point of anywhere and anything, including from Earth's core globally out into the most distant reaches of the universe.   The electro-trinity of fundamental fields and forces reduce to a lowest common denominator of what one might call electric vacuum. Or simply the vacuum. This vacuum (electric vacuum) is gravity's fundamental equivalent in fundamental geometric shape and form of field and force: just as volume is surface's, and energy is mass's, and time is space's, fundamental equivalent. And just as 0-point dimension is 1-dimensional string's fundamental equivalent.   Existing with these fundamentals at the fundamental level is a third state of fundamentality. That which is between and outside them, of them but not them, themselves. What might call the associative and combining forms, or the omni-dimensional infinite, infinitesimal, infinity and infinities and other indefinities and finites of Universe and Light, and of Complexity and Chaos. The sole defining fundamental term, fundamental geometric shape and form, I can think of to give to this third and _link_ing state and dimension of fundamentality is radius. Brad

G. L. Bradford Jr. < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message   It takes a blind eye and utter mindlessness ...to post such crap? Quite Indeed. Well said. Dirk Vdm

G. L. Bradford Jr. < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote in message  It takes a blind eye and utter mindlessness ...to post such crap? Quite Indeed. Well said. It actually is a rather intresting consideration. Gravity causes rod contraction, in all dimensions, and on the event horizon, this must be extreme. One could actually talk about a sphere with almost infinite radius, and that surface would be next to being flat. Hayek.

...to post such crap? Quite Indeed. Well said. It actually is a rather intresting consideration. Gravity causes rod contraction, in all dimensions, and on the event horizon, this must be extreme. One could actually talk about a sphere with almost infinite radius, and that surface would be next to being flat. Hayek.   And there is still another way to visualize what you said here. 'Chaos', by James Gleick: Constructing With Holes: A few mathematicians in the early twentieth century conceived monstrous-seeming _object_s made by the technique of adding or removing infinitely many parts. One such shape is the Sierpinski carpet, constructed by cutting the center one-ninth of a square; then cutting out the centers of the eight smaller squares squares that remain; and so on. The three-dimensional analogue is the Menger sponge, a solid-looking lattice that has an infinite surface area, yet zero volume. And there is much more to it.   Carl Sagan, in writing a novel, needed a quick way to traverse the universe. He ask his colleagues if they knew of a possibility that would not violate relativity, at least not directly. Quantum tunneling, or wormhole, actually an anti-blackhole, was the comeback. of course this is sort of a fixture of the quantum state but if it is a part of the larger universe no one has seen it, or if seeing it, no one has recognized it for what it is. Stephen Hawking commented that he couldn't see how anything of the real world, so to speak, could fit through a wormhole (quantum tunnel), much less a space ship. One response back was the simplest, possibly the most fundamental of all. That response was, The whole universe is one big wormhole. Not totally true I'd say, but 'largely' true: largely enough true that is. One of the very posts I made on the internet more than ten years ago was to say that to my way of seeing things geometric, wormholes (quantum tunnels) (anti-blackholes) was nothing more complex or complicated than the straightest lines in the universe that interdict bodies traveling in the universe at some specified future point where the body should be in space at some particular time. As the universe is seen to have straight lines radiating radially out from any point in it to the most distant horizons observable, navigating one or more of them in straight lines using those things seen at, or just short of, that most distant horizon in the observable universe, should be no problem.   For the longest time I lost sight of the fundamental simplicity of radius as such. We are in the universe's observed flat-surface-spatial event-horizon. I say that observed surface appearing flatness to 'space' [is] gravity, not caused by gravity or causing gravity. The gravity of the universe at large on its scale of surface (flattened event horizon), not the scale of a galactic surface (flattened event horizon) or of solar systemic surface (flattened event horizon), or what have you (multi-surface multi-_layer_ing overlaying of gravitational fields and inertial systems). Wonder where the infinite mass of the Universe of universes (or Multiverse as it is now called) could be? Your looking at it in a progressively (from infinitesimal) infinite set of

'Yet I've been attacked in little more than simply the foulest of language for attempting to _link_ the whole together per the basic geometric shapes and forms that whole obviously takes. Gravity, as we see in the universe, obviously takes final flat form, final surface shape.' What you have been attacked for is making senseless statements without any evidence.  First what the hell does the above even mean.  Secondly what is so obvious about it? Thanks Bill

'Yet I've been attacked in little more than simply the foulest of language for attempting to _link_ the whole together per the basic geometric shapes and forms that whole obviously takes. Gravity, as we see in the universe, obviously takes final flat form, final surface shape.' What you have been attacked for is making senseless statements without any evidence.  First what the hell does the above even mean.  Secondly what is so obvious about it? Thanks Bill   You don't read or watch much coming out of NASA concerning the Hubble, Chandra, and so on, and their findings, do you? I keep as close track as I can. Flat, folding and folded, surface shape and form to the space of the universe. The criteria for the shape and form of gravity as we observe to the solar system, the galaxy, and so on up and down the line of overlaying _layer_ing of _layer_s. No evidence? Brad