Originally Posted by N0B0DY  We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here;[Absolutely agreed.] 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;[Absolutely dis-agreed. Nobody, this is not science, it's your own personal opinion. There exists no empirical evidence, what-so-ever, showing any infinite counter pressure. As I said, if you studied a bit of low temperature physics, you may start to understand the major mistakes, in your thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the finite universe does exist inside an infinite universe___This is absolute empirical fact of simple observation, and any sensible logic of the large and the small. The one degree of freedom, is the descriptive empirical logic of infinity, only, and not of our finite universe, which has many degrees of freedom. It is only infinity, which is bound by the one degree of freedom, as only this description makes infinity, infinity. Any other definition, such as the observer position ability, to look in and out, creates the more than one degree of freedom. If an observer position of true infinity is made, then only the one degree of freedom, looking/traveling in is possible, as any other observer position of looking out is a multiple perspective observer position of seeing in and out, thus more than one degree of freedom, and required to be of a finite perspective. So, what's left?___Infinity is the absolute matter state universe, which is absolutely required to create the finite state universe. It's a closed logic loop absolute reality, or a completed universal tautology. Sorry, Nobody, but infinity is the, all and only, absolute matter state, of all reality.] we can't place a finite quantity with an infinite quality within "nothing" or within infinite space, for the same reasons above;[Wrong again.] 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.[Wrong again.]
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.[Infinity's one degree of freedom is absolutely required to produce only in waves, first___otherwise, it's finiteness producing infinity's one degree of freedom, and we scientifically know this to be impossible. Get your physics straight, please...] 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.[Good thinking...]
Like Lloyd said, there is no need for the one to become the many and for the many to reintegrate to become the one;[No I didn't. I said they do that very thing.] 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.[But, as I state, the cold thermo-hydro-dynamic in-waves are required first, to later produce the em-out-waves of all models.] His justification is that it is all one, and mine that it is all none.[And here you contradict, as usual. A thousand times, in this thread, you have admitted something is necessary, and yet you state none___again. Just as you stated above; "We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here;" and then this "none" contradiction of yourself? Which is it? You can't have your cake, and eat it too...] 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.[False.] |