[Eric]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Is this the reason why a theory for a quantum of mass could not be formulated?

Yes. In part.

My ENTIRE last post is why there will never be a theory for a quantum of mass within the existing paradigm of mathematics and physics.

There will also never be a theory for all that is NOT mass. Keeping in mind, that all "mass" must contain space and time, as well as be contained by space and time.

The present paradigm of mathematics and physics will never prove EMPTY, SOLID, WAVE, VIBRATION, CHARGE, SPEED, DISTANCE, DIRECTION, ROTATION, BEGINNING, END, etc.

When it comes to PROMLEMATIC INFINITIES, physics DISREGARDS and mathematics CHEATS. OK, a nicer way to put it, is it "fudges".

Infinity is out there, beyond "finite", disproving it at every turn. It will continue to do this forever. The is no actual beginning or end to finite, nor the logic that supports it. It is a complete wast of time and money. The only justification it has, is that it has shown us what the answer is NOT.

What it boils down to, is the limitation of RELATIVE LOGIC; which is the only logic that's been used in 2,500 years.

There's one very simple piece of ABSOLUTE LOGIC, that needs to be recognized, before we can come to understanding EXISTENCE.

What is terribly IRONIC in all of this, is that it was established by PARMENIDES, who is considered the father of all western philosophy and science. Socrates and Plato both considered him the wisest of all.

He established a LOGICAL ABSOLUTE, but couldn't get inside of it. We've been bouncing around inside of his absolute ever since, beginning in essence, with Zeno's paradoxs.

We are at a PARADOXICAL PRECIPICE in science, and CERN is not going to solve it.

If CERN doesn't blow up, the results will come back INCONCLUSIVE. They may think they've found something conclusive, but it will never pan out logically. How long it will take them to realize this, is anybody's guess.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, may I point out that dimensionless point or points is/are an impossible nothing___it can't exist, except words stating fallacies___it's not science___it's false logic.

Originally Posted by Eric They CAN be arrived at WITHOUT ASSUMPTION, but the 0 is INSIDE the 1 and one dimensionless point is INSIDE the other.

Originally Posted by Eric The Absolute itself, is beyond 3D. It is 0D.

I'd like to see you scientifically explain this Hoodini trick. Eric, a zero dimension absolute is logically impossible, therefore eternally non-existent... Your statement is not valid in any form of logic...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Eric]

Lloyd,

I appreciate that you're able to keep the "attack" down to a minimum. Two posts to say the same thing, however, could be improved upon.

So what are you saying? That an absolute has to have dimension or just that a dimensionless point can't exist? I'm not sure what you're intending to add to the conversation.

An ABSOLUTE is very simple. It can NOT have anything whatsoever, OUTSIDE of itself. If something has or may have anything outside of itself, it can only be deemed RELATIVE.

It has to be EXTERNALLY INDEPENDENT, with NO environment, cause, source, destiny, size, location, movement, or change.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #1.
____________________

Secondly, if one is not wanting to rely on an ASSUMPTION, one must begin their logical argument with the most ALL-ENCOMPASSING pair of relatives there could possibly be. And then proceed to dismiss one of the members of the pair, as IMPOSSIBLE or NON-EXISTENT, which then leaves only one of them all alone. This then, is an argument that does not begin with an assumption, but by DISPELLING the greatest possible assumption. A LOGIC that begins with a PROOF and not an AXIOM.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #2.
____________________

The most all-encompassing pair of relatives possible, is SOMETHING ABSOLUTE and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #3.
____________________

I'm tired and going to bed. In the meantime, do you have an argument against any of the first 3 points?

After I get some rest, I'll post 2 or 3 more points. You must however, follow the bouncing ball, because I'm not going to go through this again.

Eric

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Eric My ENTIRE last post is why there will never be a theory for a quantum of mass within the existing paradigm of mathematics and physics.

Maybe what needed is new math and new physics?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Maybe what needed is new math and new physics?

Yes. I am gratified that you are able to ask this question.

Math and physics have always looked at the universe from the inside out. Their greatest assumption is that it can't be looked at from the outside in.

Amazing work has been done with approximations, that have been useful in application, but are entirely useless in furthering theory.

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

He was right.

"Can we visualize a 3D universe which is finite yet unbounded?" (Albert Einstein, 1954)

The answer (gravity included) is YES.

Mathematics and physics CAN step outside the universe and look back on it. They just don't realize it yet. The NATURE of the universe (physics) and the DESCRIPTION of this nature (mathematics), is NOT SEPARATE from the nature and description of the greater reality the universe is within.

"... as it turns out, we can not get along without Metaphysics." –Eintsein

Yes.

I'm not just saying we need a new mathematics and physics. I'm saying something more.

Eric

PS: Lloyd, I prepared some new points for you. Are you finished with the first three? What is your conclusion?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Eric, hey relax, I'm not attacking. I'm just trying to point out inconsistencies. I'll try my best person approach to answer your points below, within your post.

Originally Posted by Eric Lloyd, I appreciate that you're able to keep the "attack" down to a minimum. Two posts to say the same thing, however, could be improved upon. So what are you saying? That an absolute has to have dimension or just that a dimensionless point can't exist?[Both] I'm not sure what you're intending to add to the conversation.[Just as I said, a dimensionless point can not exist___period.] An ABSOLUTE is very simple. It can NOT have anything whatsoever, OUTSIDE of itself.[This would be your personal deffinition. My unabridged Random House dictionary has many meanings of "absolute"___almost more deffinitions than any other word in it. Still, if we use your personal deffinition, this point is true, with qualifications___inside and outside of infinity must be understood to be both positions, at once, in order to linguistically describe real phenomena___herein lies quite a difficulty. If I am inside looking out, I have one view. If I am outside looking in, I have another view. This can only be resolved by accepting the complexity of language when describing the absolute.] If something has or may have anything outside of itself, it can only be deemed RELATIVE.[And you see, here is where our deffinitions part company. I only know of an absolute universe, with absolute thermal matter motion parts. You seem to believe in Einstein's relative universe{actually other people's exaggerations of}and I do not. I accept the relative language used for easy description, but I see it all as classical absolutes of thermal matter motions, and the equivalence principle would have the thermal and motion laws of physics equally applied to finite and infinite absolutes___parts and wholes. You try to narrow the absolute to as much as you are trying, and the linguistics needed to adequately describe reality becomes almost impossible. Leaving the linguistics wide at least allows us to describe many realities, with difficulty, yet, I see no other route.] It has to be EXTERNALLY INDEPENDENT, with NO environment, cause, source, destiny, size, location, movement, or change.[This is not science, it is conjecture of your own private self, created by privatizing the deffinition of the absolute, improperly, IMO. IMO, here, you are only adding an extra absolute to the existing absolute universe___it's already one absolute, without addition, and fully connected___within and without finiteness and infinity.] Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #1.[I'm not trying to be a smart-alec Eric, but I would suggest you look up absolute in an unabridged dictionary, and then compare those many deffinitions and words in an unabridged thesaurus. I think you may quickly see the linguistics problems created by single-izing specialized multiple deffinitions. When there's more than one person in the world using these dictionaries and thesauruses, we can't choose meanings at will, and conjecture it is the only meaning. This is the same problem my Buddhist friend and I ran into___he was using Webster's short deffinitions dictionary and I was using Random House's long deffinitions dictionary. This linguistics problem is as old as history.] ____________________ Secondly, if one is not wanting to rely on an ASSUMPTION, one must begin their logical argument with the most ALL-ENCOMPASSING pair of relatives there could possibly be.[And here, I completely disagree. I would replace the word relatives with absolutes___first.] And then proceed to dismiss one of the members of the pair, as IMPOSSIBLE or NON-EXISTENT, which then leaves only one of them all alone. This then, is an argument that does not begin with an assumption, but by DISPELLING the greatest possible assumption. A LOGIC that begins with a PROOF and not an AXIOM.[I agree we need a logic that begins with a proof and not an axiom, but I seem to disagree as to how we may go about doing this. The word relative poses a severe problem for me___I don't think it's appropriate. You can't acquire an absolute from a relative___period.] Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #2.[This point needs further discussion of what relatives and absolutes truly are to different people.] ____________________ The most all-encompassing pair of relatives possible, is SOMETHING ABSOLUTE and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.[It is absolutely impossible for a relative to be or become an absolute, in absolute terms. Absolute is more robust in meaning than relative___therefore, absolute must have root state over the relative___period.] Now, unless you have an ALTERNATIVE to this assessment, so far we can say that I know what I'm talking about. This is POINT #3.[As above, absolutes can not be produced by relatives, as Poincare's and Einstein's physics determines relatives to be. Again, relative and absolute deffinitions becomes the problem for different minds.] ____________________ I'm tired and going to bed. In the meantime, do you have an argument against any of the first 3 points? After I get some rest, I'll post 2 or 3 more points. You must however, follow the bouncing ball, because I'm not going to go through this again.[I just wish you'd go through it one time, and get it straight with science and linguistics. Sorry for being harsh, but I am really trying to help. I, of all people, want to see a TOE conclusion, as I have been working in this area since 1972, without stop. Many of my notes are posted about this very subject at this site: http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/ Just scroll down to the section titled; "A Search For Universal Justice...Wisdom Logic - The Final Stage of Philosophy - A Universal Wisdom of Universal Justice Can Be Taught". It's about three quarters of the way down the extra long page of notes, collected since the early seventies. Still has to be edited more, before use in my fourth book. The physics notes are in this section, somewhere. Just trying to let you know I've done my homework.] Eric

Sincere regards,
Lloyd

[Eric]

You know what Lloyd, it's over between us. I just read your response to my post on the God thread. As I said before, you can't be trusted. I've given you 3 or 4 chances to be civil. I am not bothering again. Never, no matter what.

I'm sick and tired of trying to be nice to an insecure jerk. You not only don't have the imagination and logical discipline to work on a TOE, you don't have the character.

I wish you well, but you're not going to get well around me.

It's back to you Antonio.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This is the Cosmology section of the forum Eric, in case you didn't notice. I try to be scientific and honest, and what do I get___more rhetoric of your personal insecurities, when someone points out your inconsistencies and conjectures. Go over to the Spirituality forum, if that's what you want to post. I have no use for non-science in science posts...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Eric You know what Lloyd, it's over between us. I just read your response to my post on the God thread. As I said before, you can't be trusted. I've given you 3 or 4 chances to be civil. I am not bothering again. Never, no matter what. I'm sick and tired of trying to be nice to an insecure jerk. You not only don't have the imagination and logical discipline to work on a TOE, you don't have the character. I wish you well, but you're not going to get well around me. It's back to you Antonio.

[Eric]

The god thread isn't in the cosmology forum. I said what I said in that thread for a reason. You lash out and call it "conjecture and ego". No argument, no statement to the contrary, just a personal attack.

"God is perfect, the universe is imperfect, and God can't be in two places at once."

Now it's in the cosmology forum. Have a nice day.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Eric "God is perfect, the universe is imperfect, and God can't be in two places at once."

Say's who___your ego? 'god' can be expressed with nothing but ego___since it's not a scientific reality___the spiritual ego is, scientifically, very immature...

Now, back to scientific cosmology, please...