[Eric]

As to Lolyd's reference to my post Antonio, I do realize the one has action within. I also know how to arrive at it.

A zero with absolutely nothing at the center is not at all what I'm talking about. A 0 at the center of a 1 is what I'm talking about. The 1 has no outside and the 0 has no inside. The 0 has no center or absolutely nothing inside of it. Absolutely nothing does not exist anywhere in the proof. It is disproved at the beginning.

I don't mind someone having a different viewpoint, but I do mind someone stating my viewpoint inaccurately or making assumptions about what it many or may not contain.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Eric

A zero with absolutely nothing at the center is not at all what I'm talking about. A 0 at the center of a 1 is what I'm talking about. The 1 has no outside and the 0 has no inside. The 0 has no center or absolutely nothing inside of it. Absolutely nothing does not exist anywhere in the proof. It is disproved at the beginning.

Eric, this is still just an obvious logic contradiction of your own personal private language creation. You have stated again, what I have been trying to point out to you, i.e.,___nothing is impossible___anywhere___in absolute terms. Yet, you state the 0 has no center or absolutely nothing inside of it, so you have nothing but a total obfuscating contradiction, in this one paragraph___period___NaDa logic___No Damn Logic... You are clearly stating, "A zero with absolutely nothing at the center", and then denying it___you can't have your cake, and eat it too.

You keep claiming all these ideas Eric, but no-one sees any proof___none___just obfuscation, and proofs of irrational linguistic magic...

regards,

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Eric

I don't mind someone having a different viewpoint, but I do mind someone stating my viewpoint inaccurately or making assumptions about what it many or may not contain.

This has just occured in the previous post.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

As I stated Eric, your posts contain contradictory logic, assumptions and conjectures. When someone points them out to you, you just contradict___again. Not very wise...

Why don't you come back to cognitive, objective, scientific, logical reality...

regards,

Originally Posted by Eric

This has just occured in the previous post.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Eric

A zero with absolutely nothing at the center is not at all what I'm talking about. A 0 at the center of a 1 is what I'm talking about. The 1 has no outside and the 0 has no inside. The 0 has NO center OR absolutely nothing inside of it. Absolutely nothing does NOT exist anywhere in the proof. It is disproved at the beginning.

I NEVER stated 0 has absolutely nothing inside of it. You can't say I'm contradicting myself, when you don't read my words carefully enough or lie.

Which is it Lloyd, dishonest or lazy?

Or maybe you just don't know how to use the English language. Using an "or" is just as accurate as saying "no" twice. If I had said "and" then I would be contradicting myself, but I didn't.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Eric

I NEVER stated 0 has absolutely nothing inside of it. You can't say I'm contradicting myself, when you don't read my words carefully enough or lie.

A zero with absolutely nothing at the center is not at all what I'm talking about. A 0 at the center of a 1 is what I'm talking about. The 1 has no outside and the 0 has no inside. The 0 has NO center OR absolutely nothing inside of it. Absolutely nothing does NOT exist anywhere in the proof. It is disproved at the beginning.

My logic still stands, Eric. You just stated the contradiction, again, no matter whether I interpret it, or you do. You still don't see the absolute meaning, do you Eric? Again, absolutely nothing is impossible of existing, even inside the simple digit, 0. And BTW, all 0's have a figurable center, ever since the days of the Greeks___just use a simple compass, and find the true centers of any zero's.

regards,

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

My logic still stands, Eric. You just stated the contradiction, again, no matter whether I interpret it, or you do. You still don't see the absolute meaning, do you Eric? Again, absolutely nothing is impossible of existing, even inside the simple digit, 0.

Which is what I just said. There is no absolutely nothing inside an absolute 0. However, an absolute 0 is not the same as the simple digit 0.

You're trying to play a game that I in fact, introduced. You're trying to call it your own and you don't have any idea of how to play it.

And BTW, all 0's have a figurable center, ever since the days of the Greeks___just use a simple compass, and find the true centers of any zero's.

Huh? You've got to be kidding. You're so desperate you'll stoop to anything.

I don't see the absolute meaning? Your stated absolute is "infinite thermodynamics" with that which has no source being "cold". That's what you've said over and over again, and you should stick with it and see where it leads.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Eric

Which is what I just said.[Eric, there's a real world out here, ya know?] There is no absolutely nothing inside an absolute 0.[Emotional Conjecture] However, an absolute 0 is not the same as the simple digit 0. [There's only one zero Eric, absolute or whatever___get over it.]

You're trying to play a game that I in fact, introduced.[I see your memory fails you too.] You're trying to call it your own and you don't have any idea of how to play it.[I'm simply playing you like the loose guitar, you are.]

I don't see the absolute meaning?[That's for sure.] Your stated absolute is "infinite thermodynamics" with that which has no source being "cold".[There is no source___it is infinite, eternal thermal matter motion___can't you read? BTW, the first law of thermodynamics.] That's what you've said over and over again, and you should stick with it and see where it leads.[Second law of thermodynamics.]

I'm not looking for it to lead anywhere, Eric___I full well realize how stupid most of the world is___recognize yourself, yet?[Third law of thermodynamics.] Why not do real science, instead of debate this foolishness, with me? Let's see your whole theory___If you even have one...?

regards,

[WillieB]

Quote....."its intimate relation to an absolute frame of reference that is motionless. Searching for it became the lifetime endeavor of many people."

Motionless with reference to what? One in any frame of reference which is at "stasis" may justifiably consider themslves to be at absolute rest. For this purpose "stasis" is defined as being any point at which all incoming matter, energy, radiation, or any other manifestation is isotropically travelling at the same velocity.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by WillieB

Quote....."its intimate relation to an absolute frame of reference that is motionless. Searching for it became the lifetime endeavor of many people."

Motionless with reference to what? One in any frame of reference which is at "stasis" may justifiably consider themslves to be at absolute rest. For this purpose "stasis" is defined as being any point at which all incoming matter, energy, radiation, or any other manifestation is isotropically travelling at the same velocity.

That is an excellent question Willie B,Motionless with reference to what?Prehaps that
could be said in reference to the relative illusion that there is such a thing as motion at
all?

In absolute reality there is perfect stillness/motionlessness/being totally full and all of
all,there is no "room" for "manoeuvre",when All is Wholly Whole,that's it!Motion =unreal
=relative,motionlessness=real=Absolute.

regards michael.