Whatever the 'now' is, whether things can come back from the future or forward into the now, that is possibly a
question of Weight itself being that which time essentially revolves around in some way, maybe! So, thinking of the pulse as of a Grid, then
it is often drawn like a sheet - I suggest - that has a dent in itself wherever something is. But more so we might try to understand it in terms
of 'how many pulses more or less than us' does it go at?! So, showing the 'Levels' in which the dent grows. Uhm, or measured from ourselves, and
therefore a linguistic nomination of things, Something that goes 1.1 faster than us, is at when to us 'now' is 'now', 1.1 [units] ahead of us.
So, Gravity bends Light. How or why - it isn't sure - is it? I ... 'feel myself ''stuck''' on thinking more...///
But if now time is different everywhere, we however come to the measurement of Light-Speed - what it is, how it relates to the rest and so.
As any other speed at first it is motion of something in space-time; Whatever that means for now. We however get to the problem of how long did
it travel from A to B if along the way time somewhere flew differently?
If it travels at speed 'c' from A to B - measured in Kobol maybe - it means within c Kobol it travelled a given distance. Time fluctuations now
have it travel more or less distance then - and to stretch it out again; It does yet travel the precise distance - measured on its own. At this
place we have to also credit for everything that has some 'time' value. If we take now that the distance from A to B is 1 Lightyear, we know
we have to measure the Distortion of Time in units of time. As we say: It required x.y [time] to travel 1 Lightyear, measured in relation to the
[time] expected, we could say that the distance between A and B is 'more or less' than it "should be" - so: If it took 0.1 longer, we can say
that it had to travel 'further' to get 'there';; That is because to its own per se existence there are no destortions; So, everything taken as
relative to it.
So there is more space between A and B than seen from somewhere else; And while we at first can measure these things from 'outside', that is
taking point A and B as starting points, there is an 'inside' which matters to the 'something'(particle?-not) in 'real-time'.
We might wonder how this looked if we built a Bridge from A to B. We should construct it in multiple ways. We would want a Construct that
looks like we draw it on Paper, taking the Euclidic distance between A and B, choosing a few destinct perspective points, giving it a unique
Color. We might have to figure out, that in the center - where the pulse is the fastest - the Bridge would be more spacious than a the
beginning. Therefore we could build a second structure to outline the Relativity of things. We could measure a 'gate' that measures a distance
'x' perpendicular to the line between A and B. This has a certain 'foot-space' - and we want 'our' foot-space drawn relatively to the whole.
For once to look at it from outside which is inside like a Grid of how things distribute, but for once maintaining it inside, to outside see
how 'foot-space' becomes smaller. Essentially we can also think of a domestic usage of the structure, thinking more of 'color levels' with
numbers that show how 'fast' or 'slow' things are compared to Y.
To run this through: We can see that if the space inside of the Bridge is more spacious than the one measured from the points standing, then it
might be faster to take the long way around compared to going straight through it. We would need to cross for instance 3 Lightyears going
through the Bridge, where the shortest way around it could be 1.5 Lightyears. So from outside it wouldn't only look as though you'd travel
more and more slowly, but also that you'd grow smaller and smaller. But so will the ones that went through the Bridge be half-way in also be
the wiser! If we so think of a child that grows up and grows old while people travel through that Bridge as we live outside in 'normal time',
we might picture one day of our time which inside of the bridge might be a decade. So if you therein moved just twice as fast, you would travel
2 years to cross a 1 year distance. If we would pick you out half way through - we should specify what the 'half' means. If we took you out
a half year later, you would only have crossed a fourth of the distance. That is because you would need two years. But though you just travelled
fourth the distance, you travelled the full value of your time. So the fourth of the distance is actually also the half measured in outside
units. So, the question is: "Where are you, one year in?".
Baby Steps?
We'll send another party at the same speed away into uncrumbled space - imaginarily - and we'll wait 1 year. We'll see on paper, that Group A -
the one travelling accross the bridge - did only get half as far as group B. So is 'time' finally not even irrelevant? It just takes longer,
that's all it is? Well, anyway, if it takes longer, how does this work in reality? As gravity wells are usually dots and create a spheric crumbling,
we must technically conceive some actual 'bending' in which we would understand the relative position between two beams of light fired in parallel.
Shooting of parallel to each other, the one that travelled 'denser' space will outside look as though it travelled less, while the line will not
only fall out 'shorter', but also further away because the space between the two is increasing as well. So, if we measure in intervalls and take a
third line as straight reference, we'll see the projection of a curve. If the third line is 'closer' to the densest spot, we'll see the outer line
extend far and wide; While if we take the outer line instead, the inner one will look shorter and - well, it depends. For that we would want to
shoot a beam through any size of measurement, and drawing a square around the center we could say case 'A' once it hits the same 'far plane' as it
was headed for; B-1 if it hits the side-plane ahead, B-2 if it hits the side-plane behind, C-1 if it hits the plane behind on the other side of the
behind plane, C-X if it hits the center, C-2 if it hits the own side; And D-onward for every other rotation. As reference we would take a given
distance to 'G1' - and oh, we finally have case E once the beam gets swallowed up inside. The magic distance is to find the parallel distance from
an axis drawn through G1 that hits an indicated point on the surrounding square. So, A-X, A-B, B-X, B-C, C-X, C-D for the start; and the distance
from C-D start to E start is - something. Well, if we don't get to E until we're at -CENTER-LINE-, we have an E-negative. In the same sense we
can measure gravity sources on that range. So, essentially A to D-something to E, where E can be measured in the distance of E-start to -CENTER-LINE-
in steps of half of the squares side-length maybe.
Eventualy we can acquire a square designed to show a given magnitude of the whole. We might say that we want to start at C-D [/(B-X)-(D-X)] to get to
E-start -and the question that arises is, what happens beyond E? What we see in this picture is that given a certain grade of bending the light just
endlessly spirals on and on. But what kind of space would this effectively be?
We are at first only looking at the line - which beyond some point allows Light not to escape; So, if we shoot the line along -CENTER-LINE-, what
would happen? Or, if we built a Plaza - just as the Bridge - what would we build into?
Well, in all this, we should not forget to think about Gravity. Gravity as 'Force', as it does attract two masses - 'crumblings of space' - to
come together. So the idea that things 'fall' towards each other; And momentum speaks of a further relationship of mass to space. So, while Light
travels in mathematical space, mass travels in 'physical' space. So, it doesn't travel anywhere on its own; But Gravity does work 'for' it, so
it has potential of crossing distances, which is relative to its mass - we say. If we think of Gravity and distortions of Space-Time as noded to-and-or
around the same thing, it might as well 'plastically' occur between the present forces, such as 'glitches' where curves essentially meet. In other
words: What the hell?
Well, lets look at it the classic way: Drawing circles around Gs. We take Ga and Gb, and somewhere between the two there is the gravitational
center, that is where the two would meet. We so could draw five sectors from there to its given G - and the smaller those sectors, so to speak,
the more 'powerful' the given G is. Anyway. Saying Ga is heavier than Gb, then Ga will take longer to get moving while Gb is essentially in Ga's
grasp - We could say that we have to draw each sector along the line between Ga and Gb in the same length; So the ones moving towards Ga would
be steeper. The Gravitational Constant 'gives' how long it will take for the two to get there. This is just to play the 'logic' of two concurring
gravity wells to an extent of rationalizing the exact behaviours. We can see that where the two circles essentially meet - that because every crumbling
finally takes effect on the entirety of its continuum, unless there is some 'fibre unit', we have the space of two spheres 'colliding'. As we see does
the crumbling take effect on Light; Or speak/think/understand; And that effect somehow differently effects mass. There for instance is a threshhold for
when a mass of specific gasses collapses into a star. We can say that it appears to have a chemical effect also. Well. ...
If we'll look at a cubic molecule, we have it that in crumbled space one side of the cube would be smaller. But - taking some cosmic point of origin
there is a relative, euclidic space to everything that is - and a question imposed is: What if chemistry worked on such a principle? So the cube would
seek out to remain in its cubic form - and that would finally also be why we couldn't possibly build a bridge through a black hole; Except there were
some strange matter that could remain stable despite of the gravitational effects; Which might be a different kind of Chemistry.
If we're now speaking of two cubes, we can already speak of two masses that would attract each other. Each would bend space in its own way; And that
finally also in 3-Dimensional atmosphere. Maybe what we're looking at - at first - is justly 'time' that is given to this compound. Time equals into
space; And if we take two squares - one rect - and put a cube into the center of each square - we can draw circles which firstly 'mean' time. At the
ends of the line connecting the two squares we get to 'that issue', lets call it 'void'. What is this void? What does it do?
It were the ends of time, practically, where time would be the slowest - where a pulse could be like millenia of time for us; Or so. Taking a tiny
particle of mass to one of those points would 'destroy' it, shifting it elsewhere in space.
So, there is 'more' time closer to a gravity-well, is it? That means that one side of a molecule will have to slow down also; And that could finally
have the effect of motion.
In that idea, Gravity is like water - so - when two drops come together they 'plop' together. Once molecules get crunched together beyond a certain
point they also plop - and what they plop into might further be relevant to whats happening. If they plop into high-density, well, its evident they
need to somehow exist in a different 'sense' to each other. Instead of just thinking of particles as solid particles, but also thinking of them as
quantum-waves, we have a chemical sub-state for how particles behave in an unbound environment. Rationally put: The solid molecule is turned into
a quantum wave where the other waves it interferes with provide the pattern in response to which the active physical events are "generated". So,
instead of having proton and neutron balls flying around, we have waves expanding from a point and with a certain demand of physical interaction
gets pulled back in - however.
Thus: Fusing and Splitting is a process of ... 'Quantum Evaluation' or so. It somehow concludes that with a 'next higher' grade of distortion,
the neutron star, we get to a different Level of Quantum Stasis. I believe that a Neutron Star is a bit like a twister in that its inwardly growing
density spins around because the extent of time/space has no other way to escape - in which sense we would mind 'mass distribution of a quantum
thing' or so. And I imagine that this effect is so intense that the neutron star simply exhausts anything that can't exist as a part of it - like a
hail of blades orbiting unstoppably around a central point.
But - what is that now? In terms of 'space' - mathematically? What is a black hole?
We can suggest that Light spins iwardly endlessly - but as we suggest an euclidic 'over-grid' - we also see limits as with changes of chemical laws.
This in the end may say, that all Light that falls into a Black Hole becomes one - for laughs and giggles spinning around itself - and that in bounds
of its own chemical properties, thus, we have a ball of fire cooking up whatever mass falls into it. Either they grow, or they shrink. If they shrink
then they're like slingshots. They 'explode' and in the process of growing 'super hot' blast all they got back into space and the crumbling would sortof
uncrumble itself - while if they grow - they I would say rather 'chew' through what falls into them, where it so accumulates whatever 'drops in' -
basically spewing out the rest. Possibly there might also be some 'drop' - different zones in which different processes take place.