[Lloyd Gillespie]

Ahh...Nobody, you're still just playing with abstract linguistics. Let me point out again, what and where your first post in this thread went wrong; "The Theory of Nothing, as opposed to a Theory of Everything, is based upon the negation of the universal forces that produce all natural phenomena. [You see Nobody, here, you pre-set the false conditions___the false negation of universal forces. ] It is a journey toward the absolute, which is often sought after, but ironically solely through relative concepts. [And here again, relative concepts are never absolute entities, just abstract ideas. An abstract concept only becomes absolute, when real substance is the ground state.] So I propose using a philosophical rendering of the exact definition of “nothing” and “everything” in order to draw logical conclusions about the nature of existence. [And here again, everything is the only definition possible. Nothing is always the impossible state, as stated centuries ago, "Nothing can be created from nothing." Sorry, still true. So far, you're using quite a few false philosophical renderings, and you've barely started.]

It has long been decided that there are “things” and then there are “no things”. [This is one of the major problems in philosophical accuracy___To use solipsism and sohpistry falsely representing truth. This statement may be true to you and some, but never all, as you imply.] Yet the further we delve into matter, the further we verify the “space” between so-called particles. [Again, you and some do, others do not.] http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10

It was the Ionian Greeks who first developed the concept of an infinitesimal and fractal-type nature for particles, yet they either did not realize or include in their rendering, what absolute nature is: the difference between an infinite, progressive-type nature, and the absolute which is static or solid; infinity has no end, whereas the absolute does. [Again, this is your totally private language definition of said linguistic concepts. The truth of the matters at hand, are still open for debate, as every dictionary and thesaurus, differently defines just about every word and idea, in the entire many language systems. I've tried to point this out to you, but you choose to ignore the over-obvious linguistic problem, thus draw your own private language false conclusions. Any first philosophy requires definitions first, agreed to.]

There is only one possible absolute state - nothing [As usual, your #1 falsehood.] - for the following reasons: “things” are formed through interactions that cancel out at zero [Absolutely physically false.] as a whole; “nothing” as the primal state is the only possible means of solving the dichotomy paradox [The only paradoxes/dichotomies are false personal incomplete views___always.] of what is outside the Universe; [Another of your personal falsely self-created concepts.] and all massive particles (there is provably no such thing as rest mass) are created through the interactions of a massless substance (light) that provably does not literally exist. [This paragraph is just your own personal private language lies about real substances and accepted physics, no matter how many out of context, links you try to provide. Reality considers the total book of knowledge and wisdom, and not just the minute pages only.] http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/science1202.html

I suggest a returning to first philosophy so as to ask: how can a Universe be contained by something that doesn’t exist (the outside of the Universe), [Your major absolutely false premise, setting all seeming false paradoxes in play.] let alone expand into a non-existent place, [Your eternal imaginary private language.] which is the commonly accepted [Totally untrue.] notion?" [Since you set up this thread to fail, with your false premises, you have most likely first-self-determined it to purposely fail, but such persistence as I and others, throws your game off___And Nobody, it is an easily recognized pre-set game, yet possibly one still worth playing. Why? Because of the simple fact, nobody else is going anywhere, either.]

So much for the setup of the first post, of this entire thread, but the skeptics and sophists of India and Greece did the same, to further advance knowledge, when said knowledge then stagnated...



You do these maths, and you'll quickly see how long it takes real matter to completely decay, and inflate/expand finiteness, to an almost infinity

Forget the observations and the math for a second, Lloyd, and pay attention to what you're saying. From above, we can clearly see that it is not a linguistics problem, but a problem with your logic and others' as well who think the above is logical. [Sorry, invalid logic can not invalidate valid logic.] You continually, by getting too excited I would say, state things like "almost infinity." [That just happens to be what extended/decayed finiteness will be, sorry again, but true.] If you are serious in wanting me to picture what you are saying, quit it. [And, I'm the excited one? Sure...] I like your idea, but if everything doesn't click/fit I file it under "g" because I refuse to forcefit qualities to satisfy preconceived notions.

[No-one should, but all should try to understand, to the deepest levels possible, don't ya think...?]

It's a long, long, time of trillions of years___Don't you think that's long enough for infinity, to infinitesimalize, and move to start the collection process of the infinitesimal/infinite number of particles that truly must make up the FS?

A trillion, trillion, trillion years is a blink of an eye to someone who is dead, but, no, I don't think it's long enough for a circumstantially-impossible sequence of events to occur. [Cake and eat it too___You're either here, or you ain't, Nobody...?] You have to make up your mind, Lloyd. If the FS is truly and absolutely unmoving, and its motion provides the creation and functioning of the parts, not even the infinitesimal is allowed to move without violating the law of immovability that you have invoked. [I didn't invoke any law, I simply stated the FS is moveably changing motion, from stillness to high accelerations and velocities___It is simply all motion in all states___It's just your mind has trouble conceiving this 4D concept, because you're still stuck in universal electrodynamics, and I've stated first thermal dynamics creates the electrodynamics of the universe___There's a big difference, Nobody, mine allows simple complex motions and actions, and your false idea of universal electrodynamics does not, because your electrodynamics is too locked in quantum laws, which haven't even yet been created in my first motion FS universe. True, an electrodynamic universe won't allow the reality I'm offering, that's why fundamental electrodynamics is truly invalid, as the prime mover, but I doubt many will pick up on this, as false first elcetrodynamics is so over-whelmingly accepted as physics' god of the universe, when it's really their "devil of downfall" of all simple universal understanding. I've clearly stated the FS and motion is an absolute changeling, what more do you want...? You just keep confusing my thinking with standard physics, which it's clearly not, as I've stated many, many times.] This is why, again, I stated in message 1 that there is a difference between infinite and absolute. [And I've stated just as many times___no there isn't, not absolutely.] The absolute "one" doesn't and can't exist, because the absolute implies and requires a total - "absolutely everything" - and the is no total from the infinite perspective. [Totally wrong again. Look what you just said; "The `one' doesn't and can't exist." Boy, that really makes sense. Of course, absolute implies and requires a total absolutely everything, but that doesn't mean it can't divide and motion its parts. You're having an awful lot of difficulty with first philosophy's concept of "the one and the many." Nobody, go back to the Jains of India, "one concept of infinity is totality." You should realize, in order to do any first philosophy, one must accept the language differences of others, compared to one's own personal private language and linguistics. "I and them is a long way apart"___First recognition of any true first philosophy.]

Nobody, there is no contradiction in saying "matter moves withing matter, and part of the fundamental infinite matter sits still." You only need realize, finiteness is only part of the infinitesimal/infinity, not all of it, yet, the part that's motionless, is also moving within its motionlessness.

Man, oh man....acid trip of repulsive chemical bonding at work. I realize that finiteness is not all of the infinite, but you're thinking too macroscopically when you portray moving bodies within still bodies or still bodies within moving bodies. [The universe is identical microcosmically, as tis macrocosmically___The quantum well texts are incomplete, as are the macro-cosmological texts.] If you are satisfied with near absolute, near stillness, etc., fine, but don't infer that near absolute is absolute because it is clearly not. [You're looking at it linguistically wrong, again Nobody. Try applying a 4D linguistic concept to your far too over-stated 3D linguistic concepts. If you use real substance matter, in a 4D model of the universe, you'll quickly see where your abstract/relative 3D concepts collapse. When you use absolute solid 4D matter concepts, to understand the real universe, there ain't no collapse___It's all real and true evolutionary matter motion building, from first fundamentals to our present living spirits.]

I picture what people say, Lloyd, and your picture aches for a motionless substrate space for your "real" strata to move through. [I don't ache for it Nobody, It's just there.] Yet, the functioning you have repeatedly portrayed is based upon the substrate FS creating in waves via contraction. [No..., the waves contract, the substance builds___friction, heat and sound expansion of real infinitesimal particle substance, pushed by thermal waves, i.e., an infinite cosmic weather system.] It is like saying there is a give to Planck length, which is a relatively large distance, but through the other side of your mouth saying there is absolutely no distance....motion, no motion, motion, absolutely still, etc.. [You're sure using enough words to try and negate the absolutely positive evolution of our know universe, Nobody. It's easier to evolve one, don't you think that's the more sensible thing to do...?]

Think about it, the oceans do it all the time, it's just the mind has linguistic trouble wrapping it's logic around such a simple mechanics of ONE complexity...!!!

Like you just said to me, water is not the FS, and the ocean is far from still, Lloyd. [Overall, compared to earth, the ocean ain't going nowhere.] If it moves even slightly, proving micro asymmetry, it is not motionless. [Where you see asymmetry, I see overall symmetry, sorry.] We require an ocean from another universe beyond Planck to keep universal symmetry at exactly and absolutely zero. [There's only "ONE", the absolute symmetry of the entire infinite total universe___Where's it going, Nobody...? To the picture show...?] Antimatter is a prerequisite to true physical symmetry, and the result of that physical symmetry just so happens to negate its observable existence to trueand absolute non-existence - motionlessness. [You been watching far too many Star-Trek episodes. Again, there ain't no anti-matter...! Miners never found any real fool's-gold...]

You're still stuck in your abstract mind state, Nobody. Wake-up___It's absolutely real fundamental spirit matter!!!

Perhaps you should go back to sleep, to realize what the first dream is, Lloyd. [My first dream is always sex, Nobody, preferably with a beautiful female.]

Nobody, as I stated above, parts can move, yet overall can sit still, just as we or our minds do, or so, so...

You're really getting somewhere when you invoke the mind, Lloyd. It truly governs the "body." [Not true again Nobody, I'm old enough to feel the body truly controlling the mind. What's the old saying; "Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."] The overall must include the parts, and if the parts move the overall logically moves too. [Again, according to linguistic perspective. Yes, the overall moves internally, as do we, but as an infinite entire/total unit, motion is a moot point. Where's it going, to the movies...? Of course, you will probably say, yes, but I'd rather stick to reality, thanks...] Conversely, if the overall is meant to mean the exterior boundary of "the sphere," the residual waves/radiation of the motion of the internal parts require a give at the boundary - just like the ocean - which equates to it being in motion and infinitely far from being motionless. [You seem to forget the first motion is only thermal in, i.e., no boundary motion required, just the one degree of freedom___IN...!!! Yet, the total infinite sphere sits absolutely still. Don't like absolute? Too bad...! My radical definition, as opposed to your radical definitions.]

You couldn't witness motion, unless part of you were still, now could you? Tis also impossible for a universe to have motion, unless part of it sits still, or near as still as near 0k possible, see what I mean.

No I don't, and I don't think you do either...motion in one direction and motion in another. Yet if your intention was to go deep enough into it to realize the cancellation of frames at Planck, I would say that you're on the same track as myself. [FS never cancels___It's too real___Infinitely/absolutely...!!!]

No it's not, as there's no such thing as no substance, sorry, wrong.

We're on a roll, Lloyd. Exactly my point, there is no such thing as no substance; and there is no such thing as absolute substance. [According to you, you're not here. According to me, you are here. See you and me, yet...?] The universal state of non-existence and one motionless existence is rendered the same - all things exist through abstract motion, period! [I think you're a broken record. The motionless existence is the concept of the concepts, as Gode'l described it. This is the most difficult of the 4D perspective to understand, yet possible___Something absolutely must sit still, to see something move___This is the #1 4D fact of all motions___period. ]

No again, the abstract is always and eternally that, abstract___the imagination as un-reality, no matter how much DNA you dream up, it stays abstract, if it starts abstract

Right again, Lloyd. The point of the "matter" is that the abstract always remains abstract, and grants the potential to dream a new dream made real by your relative little bean. [The little bean didn't exist at this level of universal evolution, therefore the abstract/relative didn't exit, it's just your personal dream, Nobody, and quite false to physical reality... Something I learned long ago___Only physical reality can produce other physical reality___The absolute scientific facts...!!!]

Nobody, you're just being picky. You know very well, that when somebody says 0k, they actually mean near 0k, or one degree of freedom, since nothing else scientifically has ever been possible to produce, since the first low temperature experiments in 1935, so stop picking apart others ideas, you know are close enough to be accepted as sound.

When it comes to claims of absolute truth, yes, I'm very picky. [Lighten up on the absolute, it's no different than a "fart." I wonder if this couldn't quite possibly be one of linguistics major problems, i.e., theocratic belief verses epistemological knowledge of that stupid word; "Absolute." I only use it to denote the difference between abstract and real science and knowledge, and you seem to use it as absolute religion. True or not true...?]

Sorry, but abstract/relative is the imaginative state of mind only, it never exists as an entity reality.

Yet you continue to claim otherwise, though understandably because it appears so sensible - through the senses. [No I don't, you just seem to think I do. I am quite consistent in my views, and when I do change views, I do admit it. I've said these same things, since a child. I had very scientific parents, and grandparents, etc.]

This is where you mis-interpret Einstein. He never thought the abstract or relative were real entities. He always stated measurement was always based on an unknowable ground state, he referred to as relative.

If it's based on an unknowable ground state, [Of measure, only, I stated.] he would have to be an ass to claim it real. [You're just mixing contexts, again.] The entities are probablistic waves/particles and they aren't real. [All waves/particles are always absolutely real FS in motion.] The unknowable ground state is made certain through the relative dipolar positions around the zero-point position. [The ground state is knowable, the ground state measurement is, thus far, scientifically unknowable___Measurement only.]

It seems as though you insulted, Einstein, though things are never as they seem. To me, he very much connected the field and the particles. [Abstractly only, but he failed to see FS were space/waves/particles.] It was his idea! [True enough, but he never connected space and particle physics.] And his proclamation of spacetime being illusory thinking modes; and not conditions in which we exist, can be interpreted simply as what we think are real conditions, are really based on thinking. [Now that's an extrapolation of mis-interpretation, if I ever did see one.]

You're still locked inside the linguistic riddle, Nobody. Come on out and smell the real roses...

Lloyd