A collection of scientific evidence for aether

Or are you talking about his quotation marks there, so sorry. I guess he was lumping FET together again... 

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 21, 2015, 07:17:58 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 21, 2015, 07:08:19 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 21, 2015, 05:10:17 AM

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

Ignore all of the evidence all you want.  You are programmed to ignore it and pretend that no evidence has been presented.  It is not your fault; you are just brainwashed to think that way.

Your only so-called evidences were "aether must exist because if it didn't then our FE idea would fall apart" and "we observe aether, not problem that what we actually observe is gravity". These aren't evidences. These are stupid assertions and subjective assumptions.

lol, I am starting to think that you have Alzheimer's or some other memory problem.  That was Vauxhall whom you are claiming as my quote.  Perhaps your care giver could give you a hand keeping up with who said what?

When I was learning English in school, they taught me that your can be used in both singular and plural types. I used it in plural. Your ment your and Vauxhall's. Perhaps you don't know much about English, but that's not my problem.

Nope, he clearly quoted you

Perhaps you people do not know how to research a thread in which you are posting in.  I don't know.  Please, quote me saying that.  I can quote Vauxhall saying that, which would really make you people look either dumb or just careless or just like shills.  Please let me know which your preference is. 

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 21, 2015, 07:26:47 AM

Nope, he clearly quoted you

Perhaps you people do not know how to research a thread in which you are posting in.  I don't know.  Please, quote me saying that.  I can quote Vauxhall saying that, which would really make you people look either dumb or just careless or just like shills.  Please let me know which your preference is.

Please ban yourself, your posts are low-content and are personal attacks. So please, ban yourself.

Quote from: Mikey T Lovzballs on March 21, 2015, 07:26:47 AM

Nope, he clearly quoted you

Perhaps you people do not know how to research a thread in which you are posting in.  I don't know.  Please, quote me saying that.  I can quote Vauxhall saying that, which would really make you people look either dumb or just careless or just like shills.  Please let me know which your preference is.

You clearly cannot read my immediate post after saying that about maybe you meant his quotation marks and not the forum quote.  Stop being so obtuse.

Well, jroa never said what LK claimed he said. I, however, did say those things...

See, that's pretty easy to understand, right?

I don't have direct evidence. All I can ask of you is to think about this question....

What do you mean by "direct" evidence?  Do you mean you have no empirical evidence, and that you're just guessing?  And if that's the case, then you need to know that the only evidence science accepts is empirical evidence.  Which is why it doesn't accept the notion of any imaginary "aether".

It's there because it explains so much about the universe and the Earth itself. Also, do not confuse me with others. I freely admit that I could be and am quite possibly wrong about this, but it's a better explanation than the current model.

Can you tell us exactly what things about the universe aether "explains" that current science cannot?  And I'm also pleased to see that you admit that could be "quite possibly wrong about" about the existence and/or effects of aether—although you then say it's a "better explanation" than current science.  Does the phrase self-contradiction come to mind?

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 18, 2015, 11:59:04 PM

Einsteins aether is space itself.

He clearly used both the word space and the word ether in the same sentence, meaning that he knew they were two different things.

Playing catch-up here. Surprised nobody countered this with the following extract from the same speech, a couple of paragraphs before the closing statent that jroa quoted from:

"gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter."

Einstein's use of ether was space, the were the same thing!

Still zero evidences...

Still zero evidences...

Please read this.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 24, 2015, 07:40:03 AM

Still zero evidences...

Please read this.

He said there is zero evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

Still zero evidences...

It's more than obvious by now that jroa doesn't have any evidence of his own supporting the notion of aether.  One of his recent comments in this thread—meant as a distraction—was "LOL I am starting to think that you have Alzheimer's or some other memory problem" in response to a round earther.  This sort of nonsense is typical of flat earthers whenever they're backed into a corner without any meaningful answers—childish insults or snide putdowns.

So... in order to tidy this thread up a bit and get it back on the rails, does ANY flat earther have any evidence at all for the existence of aether?

Yes or no?  And if yes, please present it.

Thank you.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 24, 2015, 07:40:03 AM

Still zero evidences...

It's more than obvious by now that jroa doesn't have any evidence of his own supporting the notion of aether.  One of his recent comments in this thread—meant as a distraction—was "LOL I am starting to think that you have Alzheimer's or some other memory problem" in response to a round earther.  This sort of nonsense is typical of flat earthers whenever they're backed into a corner without any meaningful answers—childish insults or snide putdowns.

So... in order to tidy this thread up a bit and get it back on the rails, does ANY flat earther have any evidence at all for the existence of aether?

Yes or no?  And if yes, please present it.

Thank you.

He actually literally proved he doesn't have any evidences for aether and nobody has. Just look -

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 24, 2015, 07:42:15 AM

Could you please link this topic to him? It proves the aether doesn't exist. 4 pages and zero evidence. Please, link it - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63149.60#.VRF3J45y1co

Now, I know for a fact that you lied about your scientific qualifications.  Any true scientist would know that an absence of proof is not the same as proof of nonexistence.  Your game is up and I doubt anyone here will ever believe anything you say again.

As it seems, I have discovered a new formula for the formation of aether before the initial singularity event providing the universe. If we study the planck epoch, mere moments before the bang, we find that there is a  supersymmetry breaking of the N = 2 gravitational spacetime field which hints at a superparticle catalyst - aether. Measuring the N=2 fluctuations is critical in this instance as it provides a unique perspective on the moments of the planck epoch.

Without this aether the singularity event could not have occurred. According to the measuring of the D=4 dimension degradation it seems absolutely in line with modern Round Earth theory but also - and this is where it gets interesting - flat or planar Earth theory. Following, I present a mathematical representation of this discovery.



With this, we find that there is an unknown variable which must be accounted for. I am calling this variable aether. Studying the planck length of this variable we can determine the relativistic properties of this energy and track its journey from the epoch to the present.




Predicted via quatum clocks, we find that the gravitational constant is actually a misnomer which compliments the speed of light in a vacuum as a signature of spacetime fluctuatations. Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:



This is, of course, assuming that Y is a zero scale uniformizable representation. With this construct we find that without the presence of this unknown particle the universe itself would not have formed from the singularity, but a pocket universe devoid of life. I believe this to be an accurate and honest representation and mathematical formula for aether. Now, this does not claim that the aether does everything flat earth theorists say it does, but it posits that it exists in a fashion.

It does exists as long you believe.

Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:

Could you please define M, X, tau and Y?
You can't pull variables out of the hat with no defining done, especially when none recur from equation to equation. As you've previously said you're not too mathematical, it's fine if you made a small oversight, but please define them as soon as possible.

Especially because, at present, the final step only says "f is a function acting on X and tau, with image contained in Y." None of those have been defined.

Thank you!

As it seems, I have discovered a new formula for the formation of aether before the initial singularity event providing the universe. If we study the planck epoch, mere moments before the bang, we find that there is a  supersymmetry breaking of the N = 2 gravitational spacetime field which hints at a superparticle catalyst - aether. Measuring the N=2 fluctuations is critical in this instance as it provides a unique perspective on the moments of the planck epoch.

Without this aether the singularity event could not have occurred. According to the measuring of the D=4 dimension degradation it seems absolutely in line with modern Round Earth theory but also - and this is where it gets interesting - flat or planar Earth theory. Following, I present a mathematical representation of this discovery.



With this, we find that there is an unknown variable which must be accounted for. I am calling this variable aether. Studying the planck length of this variable we can determine the relativistic properties of this energy and track its journey from the epoch to the present.




Predicted via quatum clocks, we find that the gravitational constant is actually a misnomer which compliments the speed of light in a vacuum as a signature of spacetime fluctuatations. Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:



This is, of course, assuming that Y is a zero scale uniformizable representation. With this construct we find that without the presence of this unknown particle the universe itself would not have formed from the singularity, but a pocket universe devoid of life. I believe this to be an accurate and honest representation and mathematical formula for aether. Now, this does not claim that the aether does everything flat earth theorists say it does, but it posits that it exists in a fashion.

Great, does this mean that you can finally make predictions with aether?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:11:08 AM

Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:

Could you please define M, X, tau and Y?
You can't pull variables out of the hat with no defining done, especially when none recur from equation to equation. As you've previously said you're not too mathematical, it's fine if you made a small oversight, but please define them as soon as possible.

Especially because, at present, the final step only says "f is a function acting on X and tau, with image contained in Y." None of those have been defined.

Thank you!

If you have studied the planck epoch then you wouldn't be asking these questions. Simply asking proves to me, at least, that you don't understand planck length or epoch and that you are not qualified to report on the quoted material. These formulas combine noncommutative geometry principles to the average cosmological epoch posited by modern astrophysics. Without an accelerator it would be hard to probe the Planck scale directly, but with mathematics it is possible - and, dare I say, accurate. The aether is Y but - keep in mind- it is a  zero scale uniformizable representation of predicted behaviors.

Most of this data is gathered via auxiliary singularity affect measuring, which is the capture and designation of the delta superparticles released shortly after the singularity, along with the gravitational mimickery fluctuations. What this means is simple, the data for gravity is accurate but also applied incorrectly and misunderstood. It is completely in line with loop quantum gravity and the quark–gluon plasma that is produced is simply more evidence of its existence as a wave function resulting from the epoch. Using a eigenvector - a square matrix - we discover that, not only is the universe a flat 2-D representation of a 3D model, it is also a 3D representation of a 2D mathematical system which hinges on the aetheric properties of the unknown superparticle. We quickly find that time is not a strict progression from cause to effect, but a wobbly loop system that can be altered provided the aether particles are harnessed - which I doubt will ever happen in our lifetime.

In conclusion, the math clearly indicates that the aetheric partices were released after the singularity event and were the catalyst for the event to begin with. If you take M, X, and multiply it by the tau value the pieces quickly fall into place.

The aether is Y but - keep in mind- it is a  zero scale uniformizable representation of predicted behaviors.

That's Y, now how about M, X and tau?

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:41:27 AM

The aether is Y but - keep in mind- it is a  zero scale uniformizable representation of predicted behaviors.

That's Y, now how about M, X and tau?

Please research planck length, epoch, particles, and the quantum alliance magnitude buffer as a reference. Most of my calculations are borrowed and improved from these verified principles. The values of each are clearly outlined here. Once you have studied this material, you can ask your question... until then, you are not qualified to comment on the material. That much is clear.

Great, does this mean that you can finally make predictions with aether?

Yes. The expansion of the universe can be easily predicted by the aetheric formulas provided.

As it seems, I have discovered a new formula for the formation of aether before the initial singularity event providing the universe. If we study the planck epoch, mere moments before the bang, we find that there is a  supersymmetry breaking of the N = 2 gravitational spacetime field which hints at a superparticle catalyst - aether. Measuring the N=2 fluctuations is critical in this instance as it provides a unique perspective on the moments of the planck epoch.

Without this aether the singularity event could not have occurred. According to the measuring of the D=4 dimension degradation it seems absolutely in line with modern Round Earth theory but also - and this is where it gets interesting - flat or planar Earth theory. Following, I present a mathematical representation of this discovery.



With this, we find that there is an unknown variable which must be accounted for. I am calling this variable aether. Studying the planck length of this variable we can determine the relativistic properties of this energy and track its journey from the epoch to the present.




Predicted via quatum clocks, we find that the gravitational constant is actually a misnomer which compliments the speed of light in a vacuum as a signature of spacetime fluctuatations. Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:



This is, of course, assuming that Y is a zero scale uniformizable representation. With this construct we find that without the presence of this unknown particle the universe itself would not have formed from the singularity, but a pocket universe devoid of life. I believe this to be an accurate and honest representation and mathematical formula for aether. Now, this does not claim that the aether does everything flat earth theorists say it does, but it posits that it exists in a fashion.

Before BB there wasn't time, therefore nothing existed or... nothing didn't exist. There was literally nothing, no, there wasn't nothing. It was that much nothing that there wasn't nothing. Therefore aether couldn't exist before BB as everything couldn't exist.

PS: How exactly universe wouldn't have formed without aether?

Please research planck length, epoch, particles, and the quantum alliance magnitude buffer as a reference. Most of my calculations are borrowed and improved from these verified principles. The values of each are clearly outlined here. Once you have studied this material, you can ask your question... until then, you are not qualified to comment on the material. That much is clear.

I'll make it easy for you. M refers to a general manifold. Which manifold specifically are you referring to? Bounded or unbounded, that'll be a start.
Come on, at least pretend you know what you're talking about. Just X and tau to go...

Come on, at least pretend you know what you're talking about. Just X and tau to go...

I know the values, BiJane. I have done the math. Please do not question my intelligence. Simply because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's wrong or that I do not know what I am talking about. It's quite simple - you're not qualified. Once you have a firm grasp on this subject matter then we can carry an intellectually honest discussion, until then it's just like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child. Believe me, I'd love to save you from your scientific ignorance but I do not have the time. Each variable has a value, and each one is listed on various sites (and wikipedia). I suggest starting there before we continue. The values I use are the same ones used by the original posits.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:11:08 AM

As it seems, I have discovered a new formula for the formation of aether before the initial singularity event providing the universe. If we study the planck epoch, mere moments before the bang, we find that there is a  supersymmetry breaking of the N = 2 gravitational spacetime field which hints at a superparticle catalyst - aether. Measuring the N=2 fluctuations is critical in this instance as it provides a unique perspective on the moments of the planck epoch.

Without this aether the singularity event could not have occurred. According to the measuring of the D=4 dimension degradation it seems absolutely in line with modern Round Earth theory but also - and this is where it gets interesting - flat or planar Earth theory. Following, I present a mathematical representation of this discovery.



With this, we find that there is an unknown variable which must be accounted for. I am calling this variable aether. Studying the planck length of this variable we can determine the relativistic properties of this energy and track its journey from the epoch to the present.




Predicted via quatum clocks, we find that the gravitational constant is actually a misnomer which compliments the speed of light in a vacuum as a signature of spacetime fluctuatations. Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:



This is, of course, assuming that Y is a zero scale uniformizable representation. With this construct we find that without the presence of this unknown particle the universe itself would not have formed from the singularity, but a pocket universe devoid of life. I believe this to be an accurate and honest representation and mathematical formula for aether. Now, this does not claim that the aether does everything flat earth theorists say it does, but it posits that it exists in a fashion.

Before BB there wasn't time, therefore nothing existed or... nothing didn't exist. There was literally nothing, no, there wasn't nothing. It was that much nothing that there wasn't nothing. Therefore aether couldn't exist before BB as everything couldn't exist.

PS: How exactly universe wouldn't have formed without aether?

Firstly, "nothing exists" is wrong. Everything was compacted to a point smaller than an atom. Regardless, you cannot comment on this because you were not there and you obviously don't understand the formulas - because if you did you wouldn't be asking the question.

The formulas I have provided clearly answer your question. It is not my fault if you do not understand them.  If we take the reduced planck constant and divide it by the natural gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2) of the subatomic expansion field we find that it would be impossible for the universe to have formed by itself without the help of a catalyst, which is Y in the formula. Y has to exist for the singularity to occur. From that, we can measure the relativistic speed and motion of the aether as it burst through the singularity and continued (to this day) expanding and pushing outward, fueling stellar supernova expansion which directly caused the formation of many heavy elements which eventually created life. Therefore, it is safe to assume at this point that aether is responsible for the universe and all life inside this universe.

I know the values, BiJane. I have done the math. Please do not question my intelligence.

It's very hard not to at this point. Come on, just the slightest indication you know what you mean... I could do all the reading in the world, it doesn't change the fact you need to declare your variable. One of the first things you learn at this level of maths, come on, you should know that Vauxy.
X and tau, and a few traits of M left for you...
Two and a half to go...

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 12:04:31 PM

I know the values, BiJane. I have done the math. Please do not question my intelligence.

It's very hard not to at this point. Come on, just the slightest indication you know what you mean... I could do all the reading in the world, it doesn't change the fact you need to declare your variable. One of the first things you learn at this level of maths, come on, you should know that Vauxy.
X and tau, and a few traits of M left for you...
Two and a half to go...

The variables have already been declared. I figured that I wouldn't need to provide them since I assumed it was common knowledge for scientifically inclined userbase. If you do not know the variables (some of which I have even told you explicitly), then that is not my fault.

Please research planck length, epoch, particles, and the quantum alliance magnitude buffer as a reference. Most of my calculations are borrowed and improved from these verified principles. The values of each are clearly outlined here. Once you have studied this material, you can ask your question... until then, you are not qualified to comment on the material. That much is clear.

Quote from: BiJane on March 25, 2015, 11:54:21 AM

Come on, at least pretend you know what you're talking about. Just X and tau to go...

I know the values, BiJane. I have done the math. Please do not question my intelligence. Simply because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's wrong or that I do not know what I am talking about. It's quite simple - you're not qualified. Once you have a firm grasp on this subject matter then we can carry an intellectually honest discussion, until then it's just like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a child. Believe me, I'd love to save you from your scientific ignorance but I do not have the time. Each variable has a value, and each one is listed on various sites (and wikipedia). I suggest starting there before we continue. The values I use are the same ones used by the original posits.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 25, 2015, 11:53:50 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:11:08 AM

As it seems, I have discovered a new formula for the formation of aether before the initial singularity event providing the universe. If we study the planck epoch, mere moments before the bang, we find that there is a  supersymmetry breaking of the N = 2 gravitational spacetime field which hints at a superparticle catalyst - aether. Measuring the N=2 fluctuations is critical in this instance as it provides a unique perspective on the moments of the planck epoch.

Without this aether the singularity event could not have occurred. According to the measuring of the D=4 dimension degradation it seems absolutely in line with modern Round Earth theory but also - and this is where it gets interesting - flat or planar Earth theory. Following, I present a mathematical representation of this discovery.



With this, we find that there is an unknown variable which must be accounted for. I am calling this variable aether. Studying the planck length of this variable we can determine the relativistic properties of this energy and track its journey from the epoch to the present.




Predicted via quatum clocks, we find that the gravitational constant is actually a misnomer which compliments the speed of light in a vacuum as a signature of spacetime fluctuatations. Combine this with the findings of topological field theory:



After combination of both positive quantum formulas, the  results follow:



This is, of course, assuming that Y is a zero scale uniformizable representation. With this construct we find that without the presence of this unknown particle the universe itself would not have formed from the singularity, but a pocket universe devoid of life. I believe this to be an accurate and honest representation and mathematical formula for aether. Now, this does not claim that the aether does everything flat earth theorists say it does, but it posits that it exists in a fashion.

Before BB there wasn't time, therefore nothing existed or... nothing didn't exist. There was literally nothing, no, there wasn't nothing. It was that much nothing that there wasn't nothing. Therefore aether couldn't exist before BB as everything couldn't exist.

PS: How exactly universe wouldn't have formed without aether?

Firstly, "nothing exists" is wrong. Everything was compacted to a point smaller than an atom. Regardless, you cannot comment on this because you were not there and you obviously don't understand the formulas - because if you did you wouldn't be asking the question.

The formulas I have provided clearly answer your question. It is not my fault if you do not understand them.  If we take the reduced planck constant and divide it by the natural gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2) of the subatomic expansion field we find that it would be impossible for the universe to have formed by itself without the help of a catalyst, which is Y in the formula. Y has to exist for the singularity to occur. From that, we can measure the relativistic speed and motion of the aether as it burst through the singularity and continued (to this day) expanding and pushing outward, fueling stellar supernova expansion which directly caused the formation of many heavy elements which eventually created life. Therefore, it is safe to assume at this point that aether is responsible for the universe and all life inside this universe.

You can't say everything was compacted to a point smaller than the atom, because then there wasn't any space in which you could measure the size. Second of all - if you haven't posted the definitions of particular signs in your formulas, then yes, I haven't read them. Third of all - how you found that it would be impossible for our universe to form by just dividing h with stroke by the gravitational constant? How can you even post that singularity occured, if the appearing of a singularity would implicate the moment before the BB, when there was literally nothing? Forth of all - what's the relativistic speed and motion of the aether by numbers? Fifth of all - life hadn't been created from heavy particles.

Quote from: BiJane on March 25, 2015, 12:07:11 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 12:04:31 PM

I know the values, BiJane. I have done the math. Please do not question my intelligence.

It's very hard not to at this point. Come on, just the slightest indication you know what you mean... I could do all the reading in the world, it doesn't change the fact you need to declare your variable. One of the first things you learn at this level of maths, come on, you should know that Vauxy.
X and tau, and a few traits of M left for you...
Two and a half to go...

The variables have already been declared. I figured that I wouldn't need to provide them since I assumed it was common knowledge for scientifically inclined userbase. If you do not know the variables (some of which I have even told you explicitly), then that is not my fault.

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 25, 2015, 11:51:33 AM

Please research planck length, epoch, particles, and the quantum alliance magnitude buffer as a reference. Most of my calculations are borrowed and improved from these verified principles. The values of each are clearly outlined here. Once you have studied this material, you can ask your question... until then, you are not qualified to comment on the material. That much is clear.

Variables like that can mean different things, for example, f can mean frequency, function, or friction.

The variables have already been declared. I figured that I wouldn't need to provide them since I assumed it was common knowledge for scientifically inclined userbase. If you do not know the variables (some of which I have even told you explicitly), then that is not my fault.

M, X and tau were not defined. If you are indeed mathematically knowledgeable, you'd know various authors have various conventions. Tau could be a permutation, for example: and X could be a subset of manifold M, an individual point...
Further, if everything is compressed to a single point, you cannot use a manifold M as it is infinitesimal (though I know you struggle with infinitesimals) so it is functionally phi, the empty set.

Once more: M, X, tau. Anything that isn't evasion coming up?

You can't say everything was compacted to a point smaller than the atom, because then there wasn't any space in which you could measure the size. Second of all - if you haven't posted the definitions of particular signs in your formulas, then yes, I haven't read them. Third of all - how you found that it would be impossible for our universe to form by just dividing h with stroke by the gravitational constant? How can you even post that singularity occured, if the appearing of a singularity would implicate the moment before the BB, when there was literally nothing? Forth of all - what's the relativistic speed and motion of the aether by numbers? Fifth of all - life hadn't been created from heavy particles.

Firstly, get the concept of "nothing" out of your mind. "Nothing" never existed. The universe existed before the big bang, as the formulas indicate. Modern planck studies and theory has already provided the variables (and I have linked to them several times already). If you are unwilling to replicate the findings with the information provided, then this discussion cannot progress because you are unwilling to put in the effort. That is not my fault, it's yours.

Aether theory (which is a serious scientific field) is the notion that fundamental matter, that is, all subatomic matter have a field of force that instructs them how to behave with other matter... this force has been documented and has been verified by the formulas that I have provided. I would actually consider my reasearch a breakthrough in modern aether theory, but I doubt it will be seen that way by the scientific elitists who will continue to deny its existence. Basically, "gravity" and "magnetisim" seem to come from nowhere - no one knows what created these forces. The answer is surprisingly simply: aether. Aether is like a school president, it instructs the entire student body to do specific things... the student body then carries out these wishes. This is aether. Ever wondered what determined some of the quantum forces? Aether.

Adding to this, aetheric decoherence is absolutely profound when plugging in the already discovered values (see Wikipedia ariticle for exact values). We find that there is a gravitational echo wave created by the initial aethetric expansion from the singularity. If you do not know what an echo wave is - it is a wave that travels back in time and has been detected and calculated into my formulas. Basically, the echo wave is a byproduct of the aetheric expansion (or, singularity). Cracking normal spacetime, the echo wave traveled back in time from the moment of the singularity to the beginning of time (the moment of the singularity). This echo wave then caused the singularity. This is a quantum loop occurrence that explains the origins of the universe, and subsequently proves that the universe has always existed - but there was still a beginning.

I know some of this can be hard to wrap your head around. Just remember that the psi-star constant of an echo wave loop is measurable by the distance and observance of light traveling through a vacuum. Researching the Uncertainty Principle may also yield the same confusion, but it would help you understand the contradictions and seemingly paradoxical nature of the initial echo wave.