gagablog 71: The Power of Light, Non-shape of the Cosmos, and Silliness of String Theory

This is about the universe. I teased the secret to the unified field theory and “shape” of the cosmos in the last gagablog but talked around it instead of giving it up. I'm afraid of some Einstein regret, that revealing this before people are ready would allow someone to make war with it, a weapon, but I decided this morning while magically washing dishes that there are 3 reasons not to worry about this: 1. “No one” reads this. (thank you, whoever you are!) 2. The people who read it now, instead of in the future when we will be able to use these ideas peacefully, will most likely be monsters, and therefor least likely to use it for harm 3. I decided if scientists tried to apply it, with non-spiritual intentions towards non-spiritual ends, they would probably disappear, and after a few poofed like that, they would probably stop fucking with it. I will try to say it as simply as possible. It has “nothing” to do with Gaga, and I know so many of these seem Very Loosely or Only Magically connected to Gaga. I'm not going away, I'm making a point. I'm not playing hard-to-get because she's never noticed my videos, ha ha, I know the odds of that, but I did want to talk about the “edge” of the cosmos to explain how it really works, and why String Theory is so silly, and it just so happens I have been intentionally “keeping myself” from Gaga as much a possible lately. I've done this in order to write my own impressions of Artpop before hearing her lyrical explanation, from months ago, before watching any of the performances (I think I'm still bitter over how much the Swinefest froze every second, and I realized if I missed live events I could always catch up later, and of course I keep falling further behind), before wathing any of her interviews. I did happen to see some of the one with Johnny Weir and have read some quotes from her from/about SXSW, but mostly I've just been listening to a lot of Artpop and some of her previous albums. I'm about as far away, as far behind, as old, as I can stand to be, I need to get back in, catch up, get current, through the magic of making art, music, and more Gaga-related writing – and of course rewarding myself by finally watching what I've missed. But while I'm out here I'll explain the universe, and this is the last thing I'll say about Gaga for this edition: as a little monster, Gaga is the center of our universe (“listen to her radiate her magic” played as I wrote that) and we live in a sphere she creates, we live in yearly eras of her albums and daily eras of her fashion. We can go to the center of the universe, though, through her music and videos and pictures, to the Ball and be with her, and so many monsters have met her, have hugged and kissed and touched her and taken a Covetable Selfie with her. We can be Gaga in our own ways, just as science guesses that every point is a center of the universe (“I own the world, we own the world” she sang as I wrote that) – that is why I say that about catching up through the magic of Art – to make more art is to be more like Gaga, to make more Love in the world. We each make our own art, of course, but it is that common core of inspiration that connects us. But so many people just don't get Gaga, or aren't even aware of her. I'm as out-of-touch as ever, and though I always think about her just as I always think of Love, as much as I can remember, I can feel the distance. The more we get into our love, for Art, for Gaga, for each other, for everyone and everything, the more comfortable it gets, closer to the loving center of the universe. And you can be far enough away from a star that you don't even know it exists – that's what I'm here to talk abut, so that is all I will say about Gaga in this one, the rest will be poking gentle fun at science because they could easily get this stuff themselves If they would only accept a spiritual perspective. You can be far enough away from a star to never know it exists. This is because of the power of light. I usually talk glowingly about the power of light, how it creates everything and is everything, but in this instance I have to talk about a limited power of light. I had to write this in response to what FOX Cosmos presented as a current scientific view of the universe, that they can see so far that there appears to be an edge, a point at which there are no more stars. And the idea that if you were at that place you would still see stars in every direction – it's not really an edge any more than we are, though we would surely appear at the edge from certain other distant locations. Science seems to have made some rather silly conclusions based on these ideas. One is the Donut-shaped universe idea which Stephen Hawking joked that he stole from Homer Simpson. The secret is Homer had the better idea because of how much he loves donuts. Hawking also misled us for decades by contributing to the idea of black holes that never let light escape which he recently modified by saying they only hold it along time. I feel like I had a better intuitive understanding of these things when I first became aware of the idea of black holes, when I was a kid probably around 1986 or '87. I imagined there had to be little ones, and micro-ones, everywhere, a mesh of “darkness” entangling with the rest of the cosmos, a network of light – maybe mingling in matter. And dark matter, much less dense than black holes themselves, would be kind of like a cloud around them, just as gas and planets of all phases and asteroids are like clouds around stars. They are just now proving more about dark matter but it always made sense from the more intuitively, spiritually-derived perspective of duality intermeshing – but that idea has been around for thousands of years, I guess I got it from some Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist ideas when I was a kid. And this happens on the micro level as well, within what seems to be solid matter and energy waves through matter and the void, and it happens in the middle, from our perspective of time, (day and night, seasons, and past/future and present) to cycles of personality and cycles of human activity (the rise and fall of civilizations). I guess the most donut-shaped reality I saw was an interwoven mesh of donuts of every size, just this relationship of the networks of light-explosions and dark-collapses at every level. This is the nature of the fabric of the universe, and what we seem to have trouble keeping in mind is the swirliness of it, and what that means. The scientific mentality has been too focused on trying to map out, stretch out some flattened understanding, model of the universe, and this is why is appears the way it does and leads to conclusions like a donut shape or string theory. If we can accept more of what we know about the nature of what we are looking through we can understand what it is really like, not try to make it fit what we expect, how we are used to seeing things with sides, ends, edges and surfaces. (By the way, the same ideas applied at the microlevel are the secrets of magic, psychic communication and awareness, invisibility, intangibility, teleportation, flight, longevity, etc.) This is why it comes down to the power of light, and a seeming limitation of even that greatest creative force. The conclusion of a donut-shaped, wrap-around universe, and that space-time is curved, and that any of it had a beginning, is based on looking as far away/back in time and seeing nothing further, yet also knowing that at that point things stars and space would still appear in every direction. It must curve around in a circle to explain this, kind of like when you go off the screen on the left or right side of Pac-Man or Joust and come out the other side, or when you go off any edge of Asteroids and come out the other side. It's like those fields are on a cylinder. The same kind of imagining wraps the universe around into a donut, and that is okay and fun but it misses out on how this mobius, this twist in space-time, is happening/shaping things at every level. If the “whole thing” is a donut, what is in the middle, outside of it, and is there any icing or sprinkles? It doesn't make sense or feel right. We only imagine a donut shape because of the ring-i-ness of all of it, the way reality is intermeshed. When you keep in mind the power of light, the power/depth of vision, the swirliness of the universe and especially if you have played enough Mario Party or similar games there is an easier way to explain it. First consider the power of light with a simple example. A candle in a small room might light the whole thing, but the same candle in the middle of a gym wont light the walls, or only dimly. You could stand at the wall and see the globe of light the candle produced, or you could stand in that range and be lit by it. A brighter light from the same location could light the whole thing and you no matter where you stand. You can see a candle from a far distance, as a point of light (maybe that globe becomes a point) but from a further distance you can't see it. But a lighthouse at the same place could be seen from that distance. And still there is a further distance from which even a lighthouse can't be seen. I'm sorry if this seems obvious, it just does not seem like it is obvious to scientists who study the cosmos, from the conclusions that seem to be popular currently. All stars have a globe of light they produce, a certain size depending on their intensity and a certain duration based upon how long the star shines but also based on that globe-size – the larger ones stretch further in time as well as space, and therefore in both ways have more chances of showing up to/in other spheres. But no matter how bright a star is, no matter how much power, intensity, fuel is in each beam, it can only go so far. All light travels at the same speed, it's one of those super-cool constants, but it goes longer, further in time and space, or “space-time”, the more intense it is. We know that when we see what appears to be the edge of the universe it looks that way because there is “nothing” beyond it, and we know that at that point, relative to us, we are looking as far back in time as possible (which is why I imagine it works both ways, and from that point “at the same time”, we would look like the edge of the universe, though of course we can still see what is further in that same direction, from our perpective, just as they supposedly can from that edge). Maybe I'm missing something but it seems obvious to me that it is a matter of looking “through” so much time, that the stars that are even further than that, even the really big ones, would not have had influence, in space-time seen along that particular line, to show up. We know that what we are seeing at that “greatest distance” is also long ago, the “beginning” of time, but it does not make sense to think that it is the beginning of time, for “them”, to the perspective of that point. We could appear as the same edge to certain other points in the universe, but just because they happened to look at us and see us that way does not mean they would be seeing the beginning of time, it would just appear that way. Light can only go so far but it does have after-effects – the collision of photons that I suppose propels it along, the intensity, is also what produces matter and antimatter and while light itself is radiation I imagine this operation, and it's passage through time, produces other kinds of radiation as well, and some of these might be how it hooks in and is bent by matter and gravity fields. Maybe this kind of residue is what shows up “beyond the edge” as red cloudy stuff. The truth I feel intuitively is that there is much more further out there, but nothing so bright, strong enough, that it could have lasted long enough to meet our vision-line when we've stretched it that far. It's not that there is a beginning of time, it is just this one limitation of light, the fuel of it - which in reverse is the limitation of vision, how far back in time/away in space it can possibly look - in assessing the depth of the infinite: we can only see so far, but if we think about it we can be sure there is much more. And the same stars we can't see in one particular direction we might be able to in another, which is why it is so silly to make a conclusion about the “shape” of something by the appearance of looking down one line within/across it. I'm not saying it isn't helpful, it's great, but to make better conclusions I think we need to keep in mind the swirliness of it all and how that affects looking in any one direction. It's not enough to realize that as we look further we look back in time, there is further modification and adjustment to a beam of light and the path of vision. The speed of light is constant, it does not change, yet the space-time the light passed through is moving forward and backward, and to every side, in different sections along the line as it passes through different swirling galaxies and solar systems. What we like to imagine as a straight line, a line of vision, between us and the edge of the universe actually bends around stars, dark and light, and bends relative to how close to the black hole centers of gravity it goes, as well as bending off and diffusing with the natural dispersion of light and mini-bends around particles instead of just planets and micro-black holes instead of just the big ones – but these would be much slighter bends, just fuzziness on the surface of the beam. We know that light is bent by gravitational fields, and if we were really thinking about the meaning of the constant speed of light, with the ability for it to bend and change directions, it would lead to the secret of space-time, we could develop a cosmic French Curve to relate to any part of of the universe. We can even see examples of light bending around edges, and I think studying light, optics, and relativity in physics in 9th and 10th grades, with Mr. Pappas, seemed to verify my ideas. So what we wish was a straight line out of the universe, to see the edge by looking further and further in “one direction”,m is actually a line that bends and twists all throughout the cosmos like a line of string in a ball. It could be going all over the place and almost reach back to Earth, even, but run out of gas, go too far back and not be able to reach the Earth (or whatever used to be in “this location” that long ago). But by this logic we should be able to look in certain directions and follow a line that does curve back around with enough “fuel”/intensity left to get back to the earth and see the earth in the past, like making a satellite map – but the direction to get the right combination of twists always changes. If you had an instrument that could be tuned to adjust with all these fluctuations of swirliness, adjusting the directions to watch the earth, or anything, moment-to-moment, you could piece the still images of the past into video of it. This is a pretty narcissistic application of what we can do by really understanding the way light bends and the universe swirls within itself, but it is interesting that it could be how psychic people have been able to look back and see events of the past: their line of vision might not have to pierce a far distance, rounding stars to return and get an image of the past earth, such length of vision/time would likely be un-useful, and the way we understand it, could not show anything recent. But bending ones vision, tuning into the light beams, that have been twisting around the mesh of micro-black holes, the ones that pepper all matter, space, and light, it's possibe to see anything, at any time, from the past. The magical complementary nature of light and vision is a clue to how we can see the future, naturally, too. But devices allow us to look, extend a line of vision, much further. I don't know if there is a scientific concept for this line of vision, opposite of light, idea, but I think of it like the path light is set to travel on, or going back along light in the opposite direction to which is is moving, like an undercurrent that carries you back to the source. I feel like this is how black hole-ishness is also within light, that space for the current of vision to travel back up the light beam, in the opposite direction. But that line of vision we like to think is straight is curving around the universe. Also, while, like the speed of light, the speed of vision is constant, it always passes through space-time that is moving back and forth relative to it's direction. So if the line/direction you pick happens to pass through more space-time that is moving towards whichever direction the line is coming from at that time, it is like going upstream in space-time and though it has the power/fuel/focus – the magnification of vision – to see back say a million light-years if it ends up going upstream a lot it might only show half a million years ago and not nearly a million light years away. If you stretched the twisting line out straight, the line of a beam of light or the line of vision, even though it had the power to go a million light years the current might shorten it to less. Conversely, if it's direction means it passes through more space-time that is moving away from the direction it is coming from at that moment, it can be carried down current, and a line that only has the power to see a million years ago, or a lightbeam that only has the power to go a million years into the future, a million light-years away, might actually go further, just depending on which way it goes. But regardless of how far the same intensity beam goes, at the end of it will appear to be “the end”- though one that went furhter would of course find a further end. This is the conundrum of looking into infinity with finite tools, even really far-reaching ones. And the speed of light/vision never changes, it stays the same, but the very space-time it passes through is moving, making the full reach and length variable depending on how it goes. From this perspective black holes could merely be knots that a lot of twisting goes around but not because of a density there, holding it in - just like there is not a dark heart of knots that does not want to let go – just because a lot of bends got tangled together there. Really teasing this out probably requires seeing how the big is within the small and really different subjects for later, so I'll just finish this as simply as possible. To Keep in Mind the Effects of the Swirliness of the Universe is the reason why it is a good idea to not spend so much time in a lab or observatory or at a desk that you don't play some Mario Party. Most Mario Party games have a minigame where you have to race opponents by jumping from one rotating circle to another. This is a simplified model of the swirliness of the universe, a cross section where it is all on the same plane to see it easily but the real difference is some circles are spinning clockwise and others counterclockwise from the top-down perspective and you have to move across them. In this case you are like a beam of light moving through rotating spheres. When you are running with the rotations, you cover more area faster and running against too many of them you will lose the race. You all go the same speed if you all hold down “B”, just like the speed of light stays constant, but the flow of space-time it passes through changes, expanding and contacting, depending on the direction you go. So even the same powered telescope could see further if it planned a direction to take advantage of more swirling-away space time, going downstream. From an arbitrary race-track, overhead reference, like in Mario Party, the characters seem to go faster along the “progress line” toward the finish when going with the rotation and slower when going against it, but we know the speed of light is constant and does not actually have the speed of the space-motion added to it. From this we can conclude that space-time itself contacts and expands relative to light. There are in fact two ways of measuring speed, space, and time: You can measure object's speed, etc, relative to other objects or relative to light itself, to lightspeed itself. And the ways we have tended to think about it scientifically, the distance between things along imaginary straight lines, lengths and size, are not as important as curviness and swirliness and how those effect contraction and expansion according to direction. From one perspective, everything we can think about is moving at speeds that are so slow compared to lightspeed that they don't even matter, the difference between them is negligable. But of course it matters to us if we are hit by something traveling 0.5 or 50 miles per hour. Science says that nothing except light can travel light-speed and we can theoretically travel close to light speed and faster-than-light, FTL. This has always seemed suspicious to me and I guessed that the secret was that in ways we/everything is always traveling at light-speed, this was the secret to how we are all made of light and also reflect, absorb, and project light, as well as all sorts of radiant energy both discovered and yet-undiscovered. We can either look at things from a physical perspective, how they relate to one another, or a more spiritual perspective, how they relate to the oneness, the constant, that is light. Even from the physical perspective of a mechanical universe of wheels within wheels, it seemed apparent to me that with the immense size of the universe and everything going in different directions, it would not be too hard to find some incredible relative speeds between different bodies. Imagine measuring our speed, or the speed of anything, from different points in the universe. From points near the Earth, everything is moving at 2,100 miles per hour, or whatever the Earth's rotational speed. But from certain points around the solar system, or outside it, you would add that 2,100 miles an hour to the speed the Earth orbits around the sun – much faster. It is so much faster that the rotation of the earth does not seem fast by comparison, but you can add it in for the speed relative to certain points. And from certain points, within or outside the galaxy, you could add that total speed to the the speed the sun moves through the galaxy, and the rotation of the galaxy itself. Each of these becomes astronomically larger speeds, and only from certain points at certain times are they able to add all together – if you looked at it like concentric circles, especially a nice flat solar system in a nice flat plane of a spiral galaxy (I think ours is tilted relative to the galactic plane) then this would be like looking at the “westernmost” point on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a whatever all at the 9 o'clock position – whatever location and time they can be seen in that arrangement from. Or any position, as long as it is the same relative to the point being measured from so all the speeds add up. I could be completely mistaken, but with the size and swirliness of the universe it seems like it would be possible to find things that at certain times were moving more than 50% of lightspeed away from each other, when you add up all the speeds from a point where they all add up. And again, the immensity of the universe suggests that you could find the same thing, moving away at the same incredible speed, in the opposite direction. So these two things would be moving FTL relative to each other – but I seem to recall that even adding 60% of light-speed to another 60% does not add up to 120% lightspeed, theoretically, but because of “strange things” that happen as you approach lightspeed you never “hit” it. I've always thought this was a limitation of science not being able to understand how from certain perspectives, or at certain “times”, we become light, or everything is light when you trace it back or forward far enough. From the perspective of everything is light, space-time is just what happens, what happens to light/everything. And it happens on macro-micro scales that circle around within each other, which is why we see such similar patterns on large and small scales. This is one secret of entanglement, the big going into the little and vice versa, but I don't want to get wrapped up in it just now. I have two ideas, one is that strange things do happen as you approach light-speed, and the other is that this is wrong, a flawed assumption based on the idea that nothing goes lightspeed except light that fails to see how everything relates to light as a common ancestor, and how everything can actually go light-speed, and always is, relative to other things. If the latter idea is true it means we are always going exactly lightspeed relative to specific other points in the universe, but those points change every moment. And we are going FTL relative to other points, as we know is theoretically possible but can't really imagine, and of course we could not see the stars that are going FTL away from us, and maybe not towards us, either. The things that are moving exactly ligthspeed away from us would leave what could appear to be a static trail of light behind them, towards us, but it would never reach us, the first glimmer would be left at that point in the middle as the source-star was moving away, t\railing the light behind it. If you were at that point you could step closer to that source star, like stepping into the globe of light of the candle in the gym, but if you stepped further away from that point, towards Earth in this analogy, you would never see that source-star, the light could never reach you with the universe moving those directions at those speeds. We've accepted that nothing but light can go lightspeed, and maybe I'm stupidly oversimplifying it to just assume you really can - and do - go lightspeed relative to a different arrangement of points in the universe at any given time. But even if that is not the case, the same idea of a shifting arrangement of points relative to which you approach lightspeed, a system you go through in which you have a strange relationship to different points, in the void or stars or planets, suggests some cool ideas to me. It reminds me of astrology. I understand how astrologers might not be too interested in astronomy or physics or the nature of reality, they have ancient knowledge and a working system and can discover more things, new and old, and learn from each other and increase the use of their skills to meet their needs. I've never understood much of it, other than how much sense it seemed to make, the more in depth the more it seemed to reveal. I've always paid attention to scientific discoveries, and they always give me ideas, but I wonder why scientists never consider them from an astrological perspective, just trying to overlap some of those ideas from astrology to understand new discoveries in the universe, even if that means assuming it has some sort of “effect” on us and looking for those things. I kind of see the system of changing things we are going extremely fast relative to as a type of micro-meta astrology: I think if we could measure it and process that information we would discover cool things about being linked by extreme speed, or by harmonious movement so that we are going nowhere relative to so many points. Even if my assumptions are way off and we can't approach or be light-speed, moving extremely fast relative to certain things has implications when seen from an astrological perspective, and will from a scientific perspective when we know more about how things influence each other based on arrangement, even at impossible distances. But I think, suspect, that we can, that we always are, and it is just a cool phenomenon, like a strobe-light globe or disco-ball, that we are interestingly connected to different points in the universe, near and far, by strangely moving really fast relative to them or being still with them, connected harmoniously. And of course connected in some ways to the movements of everything else. I think I mentioned in the gagablog at some point how I heard about gamma rays, I think, and how they shot out of supernova explosions at such a rate that they pulsed through the universe and passed through everything, almost at “the same time”, uniting everything in an explosion. I kind of suspect all our ideas about the big bang, and a limited size of the universe even as immense as it is, is really just looking back in a directions where you eventually get to one of these supernovas, or something like it, maybe even on a much grander scale, but the truth is it happens all the time, over and over, there was not one Big Bang at some “beginning” but there are always more and more bangs, some Really Big and some just big. The supreme importance of directionality and playing the curves and movement of things over power and distance has implications for our personal cosmoses as well. I guess it is the secret to interstellar, interdimensional travel, but it also applies magically to us: what matters is where we direct our focus, what we focus on is what we manifest, what people are coming to understand currently as the law of attraction. I just suspect it goes way further than that, that we can learn from connections far subtler and far-reaching than just our desires and emotions, from astrology to the meta-micro-astrology that could be developed by looking at things scientifically with awareness of these super-distance (and super-”tiny”, honestly) connections and looking for their interrelating effects. What does all this have to do with String Theory? Well, when I first heard of string theory I assumed it was that the universe could be seen like a ball of string and I still think that is a better model than what I think it is after learning more about it. I kind of see any observation of the universe to be looking along a twisting string, the same as lightbeams twist through the cosmos as I've been discussing. It's all twisting paths through a twisting cosmos, and only freezing it all and looking along a 'straight” line makes a single string that twines around into a ball. The closer model is that every point, and every line from every point, has a string and ball of string, and strings of different natures making differently shaped balls, and that they are all so intertwined that they have to be like ghosts haunting each other, passing through each other and effecting each other based on the infinite “fabrics” of string, from light to all other radiation spectrums and the ones we've yet to detect. It's like infinite balls of string, all intermingling and coexisting through infinite “dimensions”, combinations of directions. But what I came to hear about String Theory made me think the actual, scientific idea is more that there are a bunch of strings, or infinite bunches of strings, and that things can be perceived, or we might be, on one string but there are many other stings next to it representing “alternate realities.” Look, I'm as big a comic book fan as any true 20th-century nerd, but I just don't need this explanation. There don't need to be alternate realities if we realize how intertwined this reality is, really being aware of the effect of how much it actually twists and swirls within itself but also with all it's weird forces and connections, most of which we have yet to detect. When we do detect more of them they give us different clues, like the gamma rays that travel so fast they seem to connect whole sections of the cosmos in a beat of time, like a cosmic pulse that comes from different parts of the universe, from different ones. I think there are different rays we are now detecting by monitoring for the blue flashes they produce deep in ice, but they pass through everything and it seems like they have some unique quality, like they all go the same direction or can't be bent. “The same direction” might imply they don't radiate out of anything, but move along like a wall (?) but measuring them should provide some unique understanding of time, just as measuring gamma ray, supernova explosions could, or any other phenomenon, including better understanding of our traditional time measure of light-radiation. I hate to give credit to FOX for anything but I do get into thinking of these things thanks to their new crapped-out version of the Cosmos show bringing up different ideas, and I do like the visuals. I must admit they presented some ideas I had not heard of, I think, but the only one that comes to mind is that what we see as the sunrise is actually a projection, a mirage, on the lens of the atmosphere, and we see that before the sun actually crests the horizon due to the way the light is bent coming into the atmosphere – like you see fish through the water surface in a different place, I suppose. But I'm guessing, or remembering, that you see it 8 minutes before it actually appears. I think that would be ironic if that is the number, because the light takes an average of 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun. If it lines up, this seems interesting to me that the illusion would actually compensate for the time difference so that we actually are seeing the sun as it actually is, at that moment, during sunrise and sunset – though the rest of the day we are mostly seeing it 8 minutes late, though maybe there is lesser compensation from the atmospheric lens from different angles. Of course there are so many reasons, mostly beauty, that we love sunrises and sunsets, but it seemed magical to me that we might get out and look at them and be connected in that special way, the union of illusion and reality, that is a unique connection, like love, between the earth and sun. That's about it, that the universe is vast, complex, and swirly enough that we don't need alternate universes, just to understand how the one we are in is folded and twisted around itself. There's probably a lot more to be said about how it all works on the small, and micro, scale, about light within the world, all the various light and other radiation we make and respond to, and the light within everything – how when you really get to thinking about it everything is always lightspeed, nothing isn't, due to the nature of everything relative to light, and how how all the cosmos is a relative of light. I guess, besides or as part of trying to describe the micro-macro twist, there could be more to said about the dark side or black holes, but I almost think they are like the centers of knots, darkness that is not trying to hold everything in but is just produced by where many different strings or kinds of strings have bent around each other. But if reality can be seen like a fractal, like all fractals, then you can zoom in on that twist, that knot, pull out the tightest strings and loosen them all up, release the knot some and figure it out. We're not going to do this to a cosmic black hole, I guess, but the same thing applies on our smaller magical level – teasing out the knots of mysteries or conflicts, where forces twist around each other, by taking closer awareness can dispel what seems to be a black hole, a pit from which nothing escapes. Maybe more on this if anyone is interested, all of this is probably better discussed than just written, so the conversation can follow understanding, what resonates with different people. But I decided this was a good time to get these ideas out there, and hopefully trigger something good. I'm sorry I didn't say it simpler, quicker as I always hope, maybe I will in some future edit of all this stuff. Anyway, I'm excited to get back to Gaga after all this science-joke explaining – I haven't even seen the G.U.Y. Video yet! The Do What You Want With My Body video might come out before I catch up, at this rate, but if I catch up with more of her performances, and with more of my own art, by the time I get to see her this summer I will be very excited, getting closer to Gaga and the speed of light, of pure creativity.