[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I'm not looking for someone else's definitions, or looking to create a linguistics problem. It's my thread based on my thoughts, and therefore if you participate in the discussion it should make sense that you try to see things how I intend them to be portrayed. For example: if I say that infinitesimal means infinitely smaller without end, it is the means by which I am expressing myself to give you my picture. That should be accepted without repeatedly giving me alt definitions which erase part of my picture. Savvy? And hopefully from this point on, linguistics problems can be a thing of the past. Fair enough?

With that said, we can revert to your basic idea of an infinite spatial sphere that is motionless, spatially continues on without limit, and exists at near-zero kelvin to give it some room for the inward waves to contract, to see why your conclusions conflict with my reasoning based on my definitions.

The functioning of your model is non-local, meaning to me the contraction of in waves occurs "everywhere," because the infinity of space is near-zero kelvin and is refrained from contracting to a localized central point. If you follow me closely here, Lloyd, you might notice that there is no "in" for the waves to contract towards if there is no "out." The contraction would occur towards no point in particular, and that would negate any means possible for literal contraction towards any point.

In other words, because the finite measurements of particles are based on the motion of "part of the" near-zero-kelvin substrate of infinity ("everywhere" which I equate to nowhere), we have to know where and why infinity would only contract towards one particular area while the larger part of infinity remains motionless.

I hope you can realize from this response, that I am sincerely trying to work out our differences. Because, again, I like your idea, but get the impression that your infinite sphere is a localized phenomenon with a literal center. I don't think it can work that way, Lloyd, all jokes aside.

As for my own "abstract" remaining non-existent, that's the whole point to it. It remains abstract and never becomes real entities. The question of why there is something instead of nothing is resolved, and "existence" is rendered as the sensible - pertaining to sensory perception - within a black hole (non-dimensional point) where abstract time-dilations creates one set of abstract parameters bound by its event horizon where time stands absolutely still (defined as the fastest-possible speed/instantaneous). So it is a 4D model, but is 4D spacetime whereby space creates time and time creates space through potential energy tranfers in the form of the four forces. The unification of which is an absolute negation.

There is no difference in sensory perceptions if you only exist in an abstract reality, Lloyd. Except for the gateway to the realization that the universe has already overcome all obstacles that man is seemingly eternally bound by.