[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

The good news is that you've made your position clearer in your last message, but the bad news is the picture changed from the one I had seen before. I had thought that there was an unobservable connection that remained when the stick, balloon or, now, the circle of people broke - that an unobservable person would take the place of the separated people, or more people would be added because they represent radiation to begin with. That connection, other universes, to me, would be required to explain the existence of any universe.

I try to consider as many angles as possible to verify if the mechanics work or not, follow implications to verify what the boundaries represent, and implications to verify what is within and outside of the boundaries. This way, I can be certain about possibilities, probabilities, improbabilities and impossibilites.

We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here; we can't place a finite model within infinite space, because the infinite counter pressure would crush the model to a singularity fubar - a model that would have no business being there to begin with because of the exterior pressure; we can't place a finite quantity with an infinite quality within "nothing" or within infinite space, for the same reasons above; and we can't place an infinite model within infinite space while retaining literal motion, thermo/hydro/aerodynamics, because it is impossible for it to have the required localized directional quality for particles to form and bind.

Even in my abstract model, I have to be aware of implications that don't allow certain mechanics, and for this reason I disagree with Lloyd's in waves being the cause for out waves. Otherwise I would have agreed to Lloyd's mechanics, because they do work and conform to your model, the standard model, and to Lynds' model.

Like Lloyd said, there is no need for the one to become the many and for the many to reintegrate to become the one; and, similarly, there is no need for in waves to produce out waves or out waves to produce in waves, as depicted in the "Space and Motion" site. His justification is that it is all one, and mine that it is all none. The bottom line being that we agree that the universal state is not in continuous motion, as the ancients thought, but is in an absolutely motionless state.

The all-important difference, to me, is that the abstract motion is the result of the perspectives of monopoles that represent the absolute center of all observable dipoles. We can have one non-existent state - monopole; and we can have an infinite number of monopolar centers without changing anything, and this way all paradoxes, even ones that haven't been discovered yet, are resolved.