Creation Theory Revised

Strung up on String Theory

Trying to find definable information on String Theory leaves me standing wide eyed and unable to comprehend the system behind this now over rationalized and totally insane theory.  The core foundation for String Theory has a real basis in meaning and purpose, but yet it leaves me wondering when they will actually be able to fully define a true result that can hold the test of time without having to continually be added upon.  Surely such a simple task to find the, ‘meaning of everything’, should not have to be taken on with so much effort and strain?  (Smile)  Yet such a task has been taken to heights that make it almost seem as preposterous and silly as the idea that drives it.  The idea to know all that is, to hold all of creation in the palm of our hands and to see it as if we are the creator.

It is undeniable that String Theory began as a miraculous idea, having a great goal in mind, even if seen by some people as impossible to achieve for the fact that we are the created not the creator.  It still sits on the edge of being seen as the most accurate of all theories to date, being held on by a thread, ready to fall with just the addition of just one more dimension that will ultimately push it over the edge.  It is not a matter of the nature of why String Theory has developed, for the fact that it has a strong basis and purpose in mind.  However, it is from the continuous building up on ideas and systems that drives it to a point of falling under the weight of its own pressure.  It has preceded complexity to the point that there are now names to describe certain explanations just to determine yet another explanation that has resulted only in needing even more analysis and understanding.  There seems to be no end to it all! 

We have now string theory, super string theory, well then it is only obvious that the next will be called super dooper string theory, and dooper is not even a word, I just made it up, but that does not matter when it comes to building up theories, because in the end they will praise you and might name the concepts after you when you die.  Even better your name might just make the cover of the ten pound dictionary that describes the theory of ‘super dooper whopper doper mega fantastico string theory’ that they have developed one hundred years into the future.

All puns aside I really do feel myself that the basis for string theory does have a strong chance of having foundational relativity.  It could very well lead to the highest achievement in the future in determining at the very least the core understanding for the material formation of life, even if it cannot be at all levels ultimately understood.  We know already that we are looking at a theory that basis itself in materialism that wants to find pure meaning in cause and effect through the interlacing of dimensions to form precise calculations of our physical environment.  It walks hand in hand with the vision of its forefathers, all who drove themselves to their death bed without having achieved their ultimate goals and desires. 

Such incredible minds of the past developing upon the minds of the future, there is no doubt that the thinkers of our world should be awarded with their efforts, for all the work they have put into defining what seems to be an awesome and unending goal.  At least they do bother to try and define a structure of life, compared to other people who are more concerned only with such things as what style shoes they will buy when they next go shopping, or whether their favorite television program will be showing on television that night. 

It would have to take a thinker to determine the basis of creation, defined on constant effort and continual contemplation in order to get a result in the future.  True?  Or is it that we are in a game show with too many easy questions thinking that the answers have to be harder than what they seem? 

I want to show you my simplified definition of String Theory.  Keep in mind that I am just a person who sits watching all theories on life and the many conflicts and butting of heads.  I sit here with no education degrees in science, or religious instruction, just a person with no definable ulterior motive or justification for my interest in the formation of life but for my own interest and curiosity.  I have no past in learning any strict theory for how I must perform in life, but I see life based purely on my own experiences as a person who views all as ultimately possible.  In fact I did not enjoy going to university to study and left early, I hated school.   I still remember the day that changed my life forever, which was the turning point to where I decided to determine my own truth for the future.

It was in high school when I asked the teacher why I had not received a higher mark than I did earlier in the year for a recent examination.  She said to me that I would not be able to get a higher mark whether I liked it or not, and it did not matter how much extra study or work I had done, that it would still not amount to a better result.  I asked her why I would not be allowed to do better at school and her response was ‘why’, questioning why would I be doing better?  She would have to question if I was cheating or if I was getting help by another and this would not be allowed for the fact that every student would have to be given the same and equal rights as another.  I could not just get better all of a sudden without a reason and cause.  Even telling her that it was from extra study that I had done did not change the fact that she would not be allowed to give a better result without investigation, something she just so happened to have no time for.  Such stupidity and insanity, a learnt early in my school years that I had already been defined into a box, a class system that had to always stick to inflexible rules and regulations.

This fact did not change even when I got to university.  I remember there having written an essay on the difference between two artists work and how they had been influence by each other.  I studied these two artists and found some very interesting information out about them both and came up with my own theories on how they had influenced each other.  When I was to get my results back from the assignment, not at all to my own surprise, I was told that I was not allowed to come up with my own ideas for the topic but instead only allowed to rewrite the ideas that were already written by another in books.  Basically I was supposed to copy the ideas that were presented by other writers but in my own words to answer the question.  What a preposterous idea!  Why ask me a question in an assignment and then expect that I copy from another person’s work to get an answer?  This was in my mind an absolutely insane way to develop thought for the future upon which we would not be allowed to research beyond someone else’s concepts and beliefs. 

This system in my opinion is totally backward for the fact that the person writing the book in the first place was probably someone who got bored one day and wanted to make some extra money writing a book about their favorite artist.  They did not even live in the time of the artist that they were writing about to make things even more absolute nonsense.  The only thing that made me laugh at the end of it all was the fact that the teacher had written at the end of the assignment telling me how interesting he found my essay anyway, and that if it was not for the fact of rules, he would have given me a better mark for interest.

Rules, systems, laws, restriction, and guidelines truly are the words that define our world.  It is learnt by all very early in life, one must always listen to what they are being told.  I soon learnt later in life the direct opposite was truth.  That relying on others for advice was the worst thing a person could do, because no one had any real answers to life and why they were doing all that they experienced.  We are all on the same road trying to define understanding.  When I asked people about what they thought on life they would mostly just say to me, ‘stop thinking so deep and just accept life as it is’. 

What I have learnt the most in this whole process is that it is ‘this’ very restriction, that to which we define our life on the past, that restricts our possibility into the future.  This does not mean that we have to define life without having some sort of guidelines or fundamental philosophy and a way to learn and experience.  I agree that without some sort of ethical basis life could steer away from the true core to why we are here, coming from the fact that we are here existing. 

What I am really trying to get to the point of saying is that we are defining life too finely to the point it no longer can develop further than a textbook.  It is held down by so many rules and regulations that most do not even want to bother anymore for the fact that the complexity has become so overwhelming, they would rather just put their head on their hands and whistle a tune, while they watch all the other silly people trying to get it right, running around like they are all going crazy just trying to fit into expectation.  This expectation is based on the past, and what people have already been able to achieve.  People are expected to build upon the past and instead of stepping back and looking at life in total and maybe taking a different direction in finding an answer, they just accept that this is how it must be done.  This is not learning from the past and moving on, it is learning of the past and doing the same.

I know it is not a nice thing to take the work of another who has put so much effort and time in to achieve such results and make fun of their efforts.  When I write my own viewpoint on String Theory, it does not come from the fact that I do not appreciate the position and hard work that people put into defining such complex theories.  I will be the first to admit that it stretches far outside anything I would even want to calculate in complexity, so in this way I admire the work that has been achieved, to see that people would want to even ‘try’ and stretch thought outside of what is currently possible.  It just so happens that the purpose behind String Theory also resides with my own writing and work that I am currently doing on a personal level, and is really just an example I am going to use to show what I mean by limitation through restriction of thought. 

Later I will write my definition in a simple and funny way so it can not be mistaken for what I am trying to emphasis.  I want to show my own definition for String Theory, a theory that has become so complex that I am almost getting a headache trying to think of how I will simplify it down for my explanation.  Before I go onto to showing it in diagram, one thing to take into consideration when trying to determine things that are based on theoretical science, like string theory, is that they do what they preclude to be, theorize information based on assumption.  A lot of the new experimental sciences lean to this sort of hypothesizing, something I deeply admire, thinking outside the box.  However, what does not get shown is that they are theories presented to the unknowing public as if they are something extremely factually based on true visual reasoning, even though they know already that scientists have not the means technologically to see deeper into their own theories.

The one thing about science that has held it back and still does is the level of technological deficiency that it has.  It has to depend on technology in order to produce a result and the level of funding that is presenting itself does not weigh up with what is needed in order for continual investigation.  Most often even a scientist needs a second job just to be able to keep funding their own investigation, let alone to get enough resources to further their own level of curiosity.  They often end up as being professors at universities, or teachers in some way, having to stick to teaching out of the same textbooks, year in and year out, not being able to even have time to stretch their imagination and creativity.  Most work that they want to do needs to be funded by grants that they at times can only received through universities for the fact that they are considered by law as relevant places for learning and development. 

Some lucky researchers get to work in their own field of expertise, but often find that they have to do tasks on things that have no relevance to their interests in the development of their own theories.  Really what this presents is just a whole lot of people spending all their free time and own money on trying to achieve their dreams only being held down by the restriction that society and lifestyle offers them.  It is almost as if they are not encouraged to further their investigations to enhance human comfort and possibility.  They are really just left then with a whole lot of paper and pens to work with, not to mention all the wonderful textbooks of the past that they already know by heart having read them to students, year after year.  With a pen in hand, a lot of paper and a whole lot of textbooks, this is how theoretical science is born, the theorizing on already theorized theories.

Now I am going to take the theory of dimension that defines string theory that bases itself on the works of previous theorists such as Albert Einstein and Theodor Kaluza and make my own clarity of it.  Enjoy, if only to have a laugh at my simplistic and humorous rendition:

How can we define the space that we see around us?  Let us look closer at String Theory in order to determine the dimensions of space that we ‘see’ around us:

---

Firstly on the page I am going to show a dot to begin my theory, mostly for the fact that I have to start from somewhere.  I have this pen and this paper and in order for me to draw the first dimension I have to start from some place on the page.  Therefore here is my first dot where I will begin.  It is not important to define this dot or where I begin on the page for the fact that it is material ‘space’ that I am trying to define so I will begin to describe first dimension, something that I can at least physically comprehend:

From this first point I am going to now draw a line going upwards, I will call it first dimension.  First dimension is…..ummm…..what the hell is first dimension?  I will just call it ‘thought’ because it is matter yet without any form. 

Second dimension; just think of it like the two dimensional quality of a flat object, just like in viewing a piece of paper.  It has matter without any real form as yet:

Now we start to see third dimension forming as an object in space, its height, width and depth.  This is the most obvious of dimensions.  It is our form without movement.

Now it is ‘time’ to describe fourth dimension, this is one that does not get defined on what we can see, but more on movement.  How will I draw movement?  Well, naturally movement can look like a squiggly line:

Just stick that squiggly line inside the box somewhere and you have the beginnings of movement of an objects which is where the definition of String Theory derives.  The squiggly lines looks sort of like a string as you can see.

In order to understand string theory it is important to know that objects are defined from the outer edges of their three dimensional form being viewed as the outer edges of their dimensional parameters.  The dimensions exist within the object itself defined by the levels of complexity that the object is made up from.  This complexity is formed from the knowledge of quantum mechanics and general relativity to describe the space to which we are formed.  Quantum mechanics derives from the study of matter to a sub-atomic level, matter that is smaller than an atom.  This matter is defined on what results from findings rather than on the actual physical evidence that it exists.  It is based on cause and effect, theoretical analysis and mathematical probably that was first realized by J. J. Thomson, Albert Einstein and Louis de Broglie and later developed on by many other scientists to the point that subatomic matter was postulated upon.  Naturally if you have space in between the constituents of an atom, something has to be going on in there that we cannot see.  This leads people back to the study of Einstein’s work on particles and waves.  Thus the string theory was developed....and I will go on to explain the following dimensions:

Now put a whole lot of these squiggly lines in a box and you have movement in time.  When two squiggly lines come together you have possibility, parallel realities.  Fifth dimension and onwards becomes almost just a subjective interlace of possibilities.  I suppose that it does not really matter what you call all the dimensions beyond fourth when they cannot really be understood in a way that we can visually interpret through our physical senses.  Not like the first four dimensions that can be seen and understood to some degree.  The dimensions beyond 4th I will call ‘Einstein on vacation’.  You get the gist….the wiggly line turns into a circle and more circle of wiggly lines and so forth come together, making the space within the form even more complex as it furthers on.  Eventually it gets to a point where we have 22 dimensions and this is how it looks:

It gets so absurdly complex to the point you feel you are strung up on String Theory!  It almost suffocates you with its complexity.  Once you have been even able to decipher the complex notions and theories upon theories, let alone having to interpret it into mathematical basis.  In my mind anything can add up if you make it fit when it comes to defining formation within formation.  You can go on forever splitting it up to no ends. 

Now I want to simplify things a bit and bring them back down to basics, I want to show how theory can be determined more easily when it comes to the space that we exist within.  Really does it all have to be seen so complex to the point of exhaustion.  Bring back the end product of String Theory and we will start again but from my point of view, determining the area of space within reality:

We can then begin again from third dimension the place that we truly know and understand to exist.  This box is a good shape to define our current perception of reality. (Smile)  It is also the way we represent a solid object that is defined by height, width and depth.  With the combination of these parameters, incorporating movement which is time, we can then determine mass and speed of an object depending on its makeup. 

Let us now go right back to first dimension again, our dot to which I defined earlier as a place to begin from.  This dot is not just a place to begin from, it has real meaning.  It is a balancing point in space characterized by a thought or moment.  This dot plays a huge role in the formation of the object as a whole and can be determined by zero point.  One thing to remember when determining space within an object or formation you have to take into consideration that all formation of its parts exists within it.  It cannot exist on the outer parameters of the form in order to construct its parts.  When looking at creation theory it is to be understood that the viewpoint or beginning of the created form has to come from a point that defines the whole of its parts.  One cannot place this point outside of the form itself in order to begin its formation. 

Now most would say, looking at this dot floating in space.  It has no reason to even be there.  Of course it has parameters and reason and is the central core balancing point defined on the understanding of magnetism.  This can be difficult to comprehend simply for the fact that with our physical senses as humans we see the world from outside in, not inside out.  We derived all meaning of life in that way of seeing also, considering life from physical matter to its outer limits rather than from its true inner formation.  The true inner core formational point links with the original thought of creation, it is zero point and the place of force and the mind.  It is also what helps in determining mass when it comes to diffusion of light from the core of creation to the outer reaches of its formation.  Let us now take a look at first dimension and how it works into the form:

The grey lines coming from the core to the outer formation of the object in whole is the outward projection of first dimension created by the core foundational elements, light and force.  It is what I call energy matrix, defined on points in space all driven by the force of light pushed out from the core caused by a mirroring pressure that drives all levels of matter space into animated reality.  This is the definition of energy, forced light into motion, which can also be called projection of light.

We now look at the space between each moment and point in space and we see that there is an interlocking connection that is created from the magnetic balance at the core between light and force.  The orange line shows and indicates the beginning of second dimension, one part of the whole.  It is the communication between points in space to which I call personality matrix and is defined on electromagnetic charge.  This can be seen as signals that are transferred between points in space to determine that they actually do exist and have a definable position in space.  When looking at it in total it looks almost like a matrix, defining the outer regions of the created space.

To determine the construction of third dimension then we have to take not only into consideration the definable object in total, but also the diffusion of light from the core.  This is what will later determine the over mass and force behind the object in reflection to the matter to which it is created from.  (Like for instance the human body is created on the earth, so therefore its definable parts have to take into consideration the core balancing point of the earth where its building blocks are taken from.)

Energy matrix combined with personality matrix plus the diffusion of light from the core, first and second dimensions, is what determines then the third dimension object and its parameters in form.  It is at this point an inanimate object and does not have yet total motivation. 

When taking into consideration ‘time’ or motivation of existence.  It is to be seen as a pulse that formulates from the movement from one point in space to another.  This is done through what can be defined as a vibration or a light wave, which relates back to the original pressure produced at the core of creation, the original spark or pulse of creation.  Fourth dimension and time is thus determined on the original pulse of creation defined by zero point and the points in space, making us see movement as one point to the next, which is in fact seen to bend inwardly. 

The next part is the most difficult of all is the defining dimension and the one for why science is so ultimately confused by the formation of all in total.  This is how it looks:

Fifth dimension relates to consciousness of reality and is defined when all points in space return back to the core of creation.  This is how it is always seen in total at all moments in creation.  All the dimensions bleed back into being defined into one as total.  What this shows is the animated reality to which we view as third dimension, is really not third dimension, but animated existence, with all dimensions combined.  This is when all dimensions come together into one.  This is the viewpoint we see from our physical body senses.

When looking at creation as a whole it always defines itself on total balance.  This balance at all time related to magnetism and the gluing of all reality together into one whole.  It always has two sides to itself which are at all times defined on the realization of a pulse, which comes from the original spark of formation.  This pulse can be seen when you take a part out of the whole equation and look at it in more detail:

This shows that the diffusion rate or force behind the mirror from zero point can be calculated on dimension by the rate of 1:13.  First and Fifth dimensions are defined in the same space of reality, 1:13 part of the whole of animated reality or for a better wording, 1:13 part of the diffusion of light.  First dimension is light on the outward flow from the core and fifth dimension is the inward flow from the highest animated point in reality returning back to the core.

What this shows is that the whole of reality can be calculated on the power of 13 defined through dimension and the inward and outward flowing of creation.  When looking at it only from the viewpoint of a person looking into the formation of animated reality with the senses it is easily to mistake the formation of the whole as being far more complex than it needs to be.  One can easily split a box up into many parts and smaller boxes to infinitely try to define reality on its parts, from the viewpoint of seeing creation from the senses of animated reality in total.  It still just ends up being a box within a box, no matter how much it is split up.  What this means is that creation never becomes defined, but only more complex than it really needs to be.

Personally I think this shows that our current perceptions of creation are being defined from the wrong viewpoint and perception, from the outside of reality rather than from within.  Instead of taking on a totally different viewpoint from within creation, it is trying to define itself on other people’s theories that were never truly seen as being a total success in the first place.  In my mind, unsuccessful means it is time to take a new direction on viewing perception of creation theory and the dimensions of space, from a viewpoint that sees creation as a whole rather than always defining it into parts.  Learn from the lessons of the past and move in new directions, instead of defining logic on the past and revisiting it once again.

I hope you enjoyed my opinion essay and my personal perception of String Theory and the level of restriction that is evident in the world around us.  If you have any questions or want to spin me out with your own ideas on this topic of interest you can contact me on my website at:

http://creationtheory.weebly.com/contact.html
Only send through text or otherwise I will not receive anything through my email.

Written by Stacey T Pollock
21 November 2008