The Conspansive Duality, "whoa" said Neo

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Fork, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. Fork Banned Banned

    Conspansive duality is one of several duality principles in the CTMU.

    On the surface, conspansive duality says that there is no difference between the expansion of the universe with respect to its contents, and the contraction of its contents with respect to it. This follows from the self-containment of reality. If there were an external scale by which to measure reality, the external scale would itself be real and therefore internal to reality (a contradiction). Hence the real universe has no external size; it can only be measured internally, by the size ratio of the system to its contents. Since the ratio is all that matters, expansion of the universe is equivalent to a contraction of its contents.

    At a deeper level, conspansive duality relates two complementary views of the universe, the conventional geometric model and a dual generative model, by conjoining the "ectomorphism" of the former with the endomorphism of the latter.

    Cosmic expansion and ordinary physical motion have something in common: they are both what might be called ectomorphisms. In an ectomorphism, something is mapped to, generated or replicated in something external to it. However, the Reality Principle asserts that the universe is analytically self-contained, and ectomorphism is inconsistent with self-containment. Through the principle of conspansive duality, ectomorphism is conjoined with endomorphism, whereby things are mapped, generated or replicated within themselves.[1]

    This is absolutely correct. Reality is internal.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Your comprehensive source for nonsense.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fork Banned Banned

    It is not nonsense. Have you 1. Read it? and 2. understood it? If you can accomplish these then your input would be welcomed. Until then, bug off.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Yep, woo-woo nonsense.
  8. Fork Banned Banned

    Silly Goose. Creation is a mighty thing.
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Don't confuse ambiguity with genius. As Einstein said, if you can't explain your theory to your own grandmother, then you probably don't understand it well enough yourself.
  10. mathman Valued Senior Member

    The expansion of the unverse is between glactic clusters. Within galaxies there is no expansion. If everything was contracting, photon frequencies would have to increase, since wavelengths would need to contract.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Like the thread title stated...Whoa!!!
    What this single sentence of words actually states and implies would normally take a few books to explain to any one not conversant.
    We had a poster here a while ago posting in the pseudo science section, who unfortunately due to ill health couldn't contain the insight he was trying to explain.
    He was explaining that the universe was contracting and not expanding due to the fact that the more it expanded the smaller or more narrow his observer state became.
    What he was referring to, I interpreted, was a discarded "deflation" theory that is in a conspansive relationship with inflation theory.
    How ever it seemed to come down to a matter of perspective.
    If one is to subscribe to the mortal human perspective the universe may indeed appear to be expanding if taking the perspective from with in however if one shifts perspective to the external POV then one may conclude that the contents of the universe are "shrinking" *?* then if one takes the perspective of an eternal God [conspansive duality POV] it is doing neither because it is doing both simultaneously. [as there is no "outside of the universe"]

    The thing that I wanted to say is that mind/reality or CTMU I believe has some well founded ideas but to fully explain it in a way that forums such as this can cope would not only be foolish but ultimately futile due to the serious mental gymnastics required to accommodate the full ramifications of such a concept. Due to it's penetration of the core of our own self identity. [fear paranoid reactions would be common outcomes]
    Posters such as AlexG etc are not really into doing to much gymnastics and to be honest given the nature of your subject I am not surprised that they may wish to defend other peoples right to not being so challenged.

    Any ways just some thoughts

    edit: Just having a scan read of the CTMU and you call that a primer...sheesh! my sceintific jargon thesaurus has just had a melt down... [chuckle]
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2013
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    To expand and example what I was trying to say:
    imagine a simple scenario:
    Man jumps out of plane at 30000ft no parachute..ok?
    cognitive pov's:

    1] Man is "falling" to earth at a rate determined by blah blah blah!
    2] Man is "shrinking" to earth at a rate of Blah blah blah!

    Both views are discussing the nature of Gravity.
    Both views are bound by cognitive observation.
    Yet both views are incredibly different in their implications.
    Can one truly consider gravity in relative terms any way?!
    If not how is "falling" a valid interpretive observation?

    Or the question:

    What is the inertial status of an iron object caught in a strong magnetic field?
    It is one with the field or is it still in an existential duality?

    These sorts of question are the sorts of questions that open the door to future understandings but are really really hard to convey in a way that dos not force the reader into a severe case of performing mental gymnastics as they attempt to work with their inherent and conditioned belief systems.
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    so ...his grandmother could fully understand GR, SRT and all the ramifications? eh... I bet not...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Fork Banned Banned

    Of course. But you'd have to consider the affects on relativity.
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    There's a difference between understanding the conceptual framework and understanding how to do explicit calculations. The quote refers to the former, not the latter. Besides, how many hacks here claim to understand relativity or quantum mechanics but cannot do a single quantitative calculation in either? Farsight claims he understands QFT better than Nobel Prize winners yet he is functionally enumerate.

    Thread moved to alternative theories since Langdan's CTMU is BS.
  16. Fork Banned Banned


    "Action = energy x time" is correct. Space and time are both real.
  17. Fork Banned Banned


Share This Page