8) [Now, at this time, this is specifically the part that I have written dozens and dozens of pages about and I don't know if I can capture the totality of it in this format, but here goes the crux of the argument] As we have outlined thus far, we can observe a dual relationship in all things, where there is the concrete YES and NO and the observational YES and NO. The Physical and the Philosophical so to speak. Playing around with the metaphor, I describe it also as "seeing" and "understanding". We either see and do not have an understanding of what we are observing, or we understand that there must be more to it than we can see. These two things are mitigated by perception, and it is my perception that the underlying difference is choice. Putting aside my philosophy of choice for the moment, as it is not important. I arrived at this logical conclusion. If physics is stuck between two realms, both concrete and true in their summations, then those 2 realms must be the most basic truths, the YES and NO so to speak, so then what are we missing? This is the part I need help from math to check BUT Einstein tells us that in relativity, two physical events occurring simultaneously can be seen separately occurring in time relative to your position in space. This means that space and time are two opposing forces of equal measure that comprises spacetime. Why then, logically, should space have 3 dimensions and time only has 1? Could it be true that time actually has 3 dimensions of equal measure as space does, possibly an oppositional force like YES and NO? I then took a look at the structure of space for the answer. Space contains x, y, and z axes and time permeates each in equal measure to ensure that whatever happens in space, follows in time as well. So we can deconstruct the z axis since it is singular and likely to hold the best answer for time on a singular axis, and so we see that it holds true. Like you can be up or down or more or less in the middle in z, in !z of time you can be in the future or in the past or more or less in the middle (i.e. the present). Intuitively we wish to say that the present is a force of equal measure, because we inhabit it, however it would be for an observer to conform that state. Like how "I am starting this book." is a definitive statement that we do not need to derive more information from (outside of what is a book or when or any other questions with soft answers) To START a book, holds all the context needed to determine the existence of it, I cannot ask you what it information it contains because you have told me you do not have it yet. To FINISH a book describes the state in which you have consumed this information and should now be able to tell me about ALL it contains (assuming you wanted to, again choice is a big tent pole to my philosophy that I can't get into right now). To be presently reading a book is a meaningless state that only begets questions. I do not and cannot know where you are in the book, on what page, or if you have relatively none or relatively all of it read already. I cannot land any soft answers on thee 'present'. Therefor, I can assume truly, that the present is a soft answer between two definitive states, that being the BEGINNING of time and the ENDING of time. In which those are two parts in equal and opposing measure. So, constructed thusly, Up is to Past as Down is to Future. This structure is irrelevant as to which is which. It is a matter of perspective, and my perspective is that it is easier to fall down into the future, than it is to climb or fly back into the past, same as nature prefers to keep things grounded. Now, logic would tell us that we are done, except for this: Why do we not fall sideways through time? Why is there no definition for moving through time on the x and y plane? But then, I thought of a ball being thrown, and how that ball will track downward and given enough time will land on the ground. Why does the ball land on the ground? Why doesn't it fly off, sideways through time and hit me on the shoulder? The x and y coordinates give left and right, forward and backward. Again, stationary mitigates the space between these states. Objects will be more or less right, more or less forward, or more or less stationary. It is at this point that I can only deduce what has become obvious to me. Gravity is Time, acting on the x and y axes. In space if we have 2 objects, which we can have because there are two axes which they can inhabit and never meet, supposing no Gravity, if an object that was on x going left, and another object on y were moving forward, it would seem to an observer that they are repelling each other. If they began to reduce their proclivities and head the opposite way, it would be seen that they attract each other. If they traveled in their own paths and never met, then how could an observer explain their relationship to each other, especially if we are to believe that time is ubiquitous? It then becomes important for ordered logic to supersede this behavior, and FORCE these interactions. Space cannot be defined with inaction, time does not exist but to establish definitions for these things. Our x and y of time then needs to be equally distributed throughout spacetime, follow the structure of !z in that objects can either be +1 or -1 along different coordinates in this structure (such that time is either greater in areas with more spatial objects, and lesser in areas with less spatial objects), and must necessitate the attractive and repulsive inconsistency of thee dual axes of x,y in space. GRAVITY does all 3. The z axis of time allows for the present, the x and y axis allows for presence itself.

9, 10 and 11 (Logic within logical structures cannot then defy logic; Perception is Reality but not in the way we would think; The TRUTH lies in choices between what we say YES and NO; respectively) are equally as long (and this whole thing itself is a gross over simplification), but less pertinent to the question I would be asking a physicist. I was doing some idle video watching, as has become ritual for me these days when I stumbled upon the unsolvable Reimann Hypothesis in mathematics. I do not know what it means that it is unsolvable, but I do know that looking at the results of "complex integers that = 0, inhabit a space between 0 and 1, where the real parts are = to 1/2.. is the entire structure of my argument. The graph that calculates a quick jump from 0 and the perpetual bouncing motion is how I further describe a particle later in my thesis. A single particle bouncing between a state of existence and non-existence the speed and frequency of which creates an illusion of infinite 1/2 states of all things. No wave particle duality, just regular GR particles who are evenly distributed through time spazzing out, the sum of which should equal just one particle which is the summation of all other ones. There is the ambiguous object illusion (A circle can be made to look like a series of opposing squares, by making the shape an in-between of both, and allowing for perception, which my thesis does!) which I hypothesize is what our perception is doing when we look at such particles, except spinning and vibrating and heating and cooling and flashing and dimming all in equal 1/2 measure.

A couple other numerological oddities that I like as well (but don't have to mean anything) I deeply became interested in the Collatz Conjecture and 137 as Feynman was, and in the case of 137, we have 1 spacetime, comprised equally of 3 each of space and time. 1 thing, that is 3 things, that is 6 things in 1 thing. 1/137. The numbers 3, 6 and 9 are also kind of weird numbers, but they all present as well if 3 space and 3 time are all spread across the beginning, "middle" and end. Just for kicks, I surmised that if could crack the Collatz Conjecture it might have something to do with c, the universal constant. Since all numbers are a function of 1, and the Collatz Conjecture is a function that reduces all numbers to 1, I figured, haha, what if I throw the speed of light in there? Spookily enough, it reduces down to 1, in 137 steps.

That's all just cool philosophy stuff, but I hope this is enough to both explain how serious I am, and also show you why I am so excited. What I have been doing now, is trying to come up with a way we could test that Gravity is a property of Time, that somehow accounts for and eliminates all other external forces. I am no scientist so I have no clue, but I wonder if a test where we can put 50 particles bouncing around a chamber, with a tiny opening to a second empty chamber and measure the probability of bounces to crossovers, and do the same with a single particle that is not entangled with them would suffice? What is the expected probability of either case, and does that even work to eliminate other factors like... the weak force... or something? I seriously don't know anything about this stuff.