The proposal is that in any closed system, the longevity of that system is identified when the mirrored centre of that system can be equated as an exact opposite state of ‘external’ composition.
The ‘external’ definition here is: anything other than itself no matter comprised of its quantifiable inherent or extreme natures, if such can be found.
The foundation for such a thing is the longevity of a system that surrounds a singularity defining the use of the system when the singularity has been localised to a mid-point of viability, and can only exist in opposition to that which defines it as ‘other’ to the whole. In other words, a closed system only has use according to the thing that defines it as a construct for which the thing can exist in and; the system cannot exist unless there is something to exist for.
As a comparison to time, 1 second is the mid-point between 0 second and 2 second, where the unfolding of time occurs towards and away from1 second when the range of existence is nothing or double. As a comparison to space in 1-then-2 dimensions, a point is the mid-point of a line when the point expands itself in opposite and equal directions of equal measure to define the measure itself.
The hypothesis is that for any existing thing within a closed system, its very identity defines it as a composition of longevity according to its own parameters of being when compared to the longevity of the system itself, which in turn identifies parameters of longevity of the system as being reliant on having something to exist for. At any moment, the closed system is a whole of time and space no matter how long or large, or how short or small, and ‘external’ to it is its exact opposite comprised of ‘finite’ identity amidst a seemingly ‘infinite’ occasion.
The ‘infinite’ occasion of a closed system expands and contracts around the ‘finite’ defined within it, so that one ‘finite’ thing has inherent time and space when it is singular and ‘infinite’ becomes ‘finite’ itself; but as multiple ‘finite’ things, infinity expands away from its inherent ‘centre’...the point of the line...the second in time...the points of a line...the seconds in time.
In the comparison to the Universe and where it began and where it will end, as long as there is something of substance within it, that thing will always define the centre of time and space that the Universe is. The amount of time spent until that thing came into existence will be the amount of time for that thing to dissipate out of existence, and time is the barrier of the space surrounding the Universe up until the moment of a thing’s creation. If the very last thing uniquely created right this very moment occurs, then it defines the midpoint of time and space: the Universe will be some 26 billion years old and some 26 billion light years large.
This is the extent of dissolution from solution whereby dissolution is undefinable from solution, and both become one and the same thing as ‘infinity’ and ‘finite’ right next door to each other and incomparable the one from the other. The expanse of ‘nothingness’ comprises a single, incomparable thing as no space-time to ‘all things’ after their space-times have expressed themselves...space-time is a supposition of self estimation and self comparison to what it enfolds not just within it but around it...from where it came from to where it is going...and surrounds its own mirror from which to compare to.
I admit I have tried expressing diverse things in the past and they are simple with comparable expressions in such as math equations or a solid form against another solid form, even the smell of a flower compared to the sight of a stone on a footpath, but physics and such concepts are difficult. I have previously described as simply as possible the constructs of energy rolled up into something tangible with several layers of machinations reliant upon each other in order to perform what the whole does, and one of those layers proved correct but it was done on a much simpler scale compared to what I described. I am currently working on that middle layer of construct and it is proving worthwhile and elusive at the same time. The last layer surrounds the description given above.
If what I described in this conjecture is already known, please point me in the direction of that thing so I can become familiar with it and know where I am heading. Otherwise, any input towards better describing this conjecture would be warmly accepted. I am, after all, an amateur in expressing things...not grasping them...but yes, you might have to describe the smell of a flower compared to the sight of a stone on a footpath to me. I’ll understand that.
In ending, I haven’t proposed this anywhere but right now, right here. I like this site and what it has done for me and to me. If I need to go somewhere else to propose this to, I guess I’ll have to. But here is where it was birthed. That can’t be taken away from here…