[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I have to say that I just can't believe it. I understand exactly what you are saying about the one absolute, primarily because that is what I've been saying all along. The crux of our arguments has been whether or not the absolute one exists. Perhaps if we argue long enough we'll switch roles!

You are remarkably close in theory to Fredrick I would say, in the sense that he is also willing to consider an abstract whole with fundamentally real parts existing in order for the universe to function. So I guess in that respect I have to stand alone because I have concluded that both the whole and the relative parts are abstract, with relative spacetime governed soley by the abstract perspectives of non-existence. One being expansive through division; and the other being contractive through multiplication.

Your point about the weather systems I addressed in another response a while back. I do read what you write. If we are to remain consistent, without contradicting ourselves, when we compare things to other things they have to obey the same laws in order for the mechanics to carry throughout all scales. Yet often empirical science is ignored because of theoretical science, and vice-versa, and philosophical science is ignored because the former two support each other seemingly so well. For instance, if gravity were to be the result of space warps, the earth would be rotating clockwise from a northern perspective, but it rotates counter-clockwise from a northern perspective. Which is a good example, imo, of classical physics taking precedence over quantum mechanics.

In a similar fashion, your partial movement and stillness of the FS neglects the fact that a differentiable medium is required for waves to literally be generated - air is the medium of water waves, not water is the medium of water waves, or rather the FS - space - is the true medium of all waves. What follows here is the most important point of what we're driving at, Lloyd. That the FS, since it is undifferentiable, i.e., absolute in and of itself, cannot ever be considered to function as both wave and medium. And that is why I propose only the photon/graviton can function mechanically-correct as both, because they can be likened to the center of a breaking wave or the sum of simultaneous peak and trough measurements. The peak-to-peak and trough-to-trough measurements represent the non-dimensional electron-positron pairs, which are analogous to snapshots of the effects of a reduction in speed. All impressions are therefore depednent upon the reducution of amplitudes which slow down the waves, so to speak, rendering itself logical that the photons/gravitons don't really exist, and therefore neither can the waves. There can be no partiality to the absolute, no lesser- or more-refined FS, and as a result there can be no physical reality. There can be no fluid changeling FS. It is a subconscious lightshow, deemed real by the conscious mind.

Ultimately, when you argue a cyclic-universe scenario it reminds me of the buddhist concept of reincarnation and concepts of universal breath. Again, I do read everything you write, Lloyd, but I follow the yogic breathless state that not only has a beneficial effect on what ails you, but is the extremely narrow gateway to perfection that prohibits the "Eternal Return." The big-bang models and little-bang models are attempts to force-fit religion into science. Neither, imo, have anything to do with absolute reality.

I will look into the thermodynamics more closely, but as I said there is nothing wrong at all with the mechanics of in waves producing out waves. What I said was that the mechanics can only apply if the universal model is finite, where the contractive mechanism has a definite point of reference. Without which, the waves would be so confused as to which way to move, they wouldn't move at all.