[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Depending upon its definition, it can be said to be undetectible. If defined as absolutely full, then there is no differentiation possible to perceive things. I guess an infinite number of layers of refinement are necessary for reality to be perceived, and those layers would lie between the abstract perspectives of 1 (fullness) and 0 (emptiness).

Nobody, you keep using background-dependent analyses of your models. As Lee Smolin has correctly pointed out, "The geometry of space/void is not part of the laws of nature." This is in accordance with the deep foundations of Einstein's thinking, also. When anyone tries to use any type of background-dependence idea, they are bound to fail. The geometry of any and all space/void is isomorphic to time/distance motion___Change... All laws are removed from absolute motion's background, because nature must also be free to create finiteness, in her own way, though I do think the void is FS in random linear motion, before it quantumizes itself, into uniform motions... This idea leaves the void of FS motion nature free to act accordingly, i.e., random linear motion, out toward infinity, and in toward finiteness...

A full void can still isomorphically move within itself, just as quantum mechanics knows photons move through themselves, independently, through background-independence, when ideas are removed from the restrictions of background-dependence. This is where we have to search for quantum gravity. Just as Einstein said, "Field is everywhere." But, what type of background-independent fields exist, before first star/stars/etc...? We already know all about background-dependent fields, of the three major physics models, being based in a ridiculous infinite mass/infinitesimal point. The three models referred to are standard quantum, standard particle, and standard cosmological. Einstein stayed outside these ridiculous models with both his SR and GR theories. And, even though he didn't achieve his goals, that's no reason to abandon the search...

It's time for a change of backgrounds...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
I think void is the most mis-interpreted word in the english language, mainly because it truly doesn't exist, except as a larger definition of space, outside what we know as finite space. That greater space is, in my a-priori logic and math opinions, still FS in motion...

[N0B0DY]

"How come they aren't explaining it?"

I think they try, but people don't want to hear it. As for blowing up the world, it wouldn't make a difference, as in zero difference, because there is no concept of time for putting you right back where you are now. The earth blows up, and Sally is born.

Lloyd,

I won't say you contradict yourself, but you are being inconsistent with what I remember you stating about the FS which you state again here: "...though I do think the void is FS in random linear motion..." You just seem to not want to believe it, so you proclaim both geometrical spacetime as separate from natural laws and FS as representative of spacetime. With your random linear motion as synonymous to expandable and contractible spacetime, allowing your aerodynamics and thermodynamics to function.

Again, although I see what you're driving at and agree with you for the most part about your contractive quantization method, Einstein stuck by his illusory remarks for a reason. As above, spacetime - past, present, future - are illusory pre-requisites to the conditions and laws you claim are separately real.

So what type of field model did Einstein advocate? If we take Einstein's words for what they say, and not discard them as him claiming certain things when having a peculiarly bad day, the necessary modes by which we think are the necessary modes by which the conditional fields are built upon.

I'm more newtonian than einsteinian and smolinian, but it is very easy to incorporate the new-visionary models by quantifying absolute space without altering the absolute state - like a simple white piece of paper contains every possible picture imaginable - all that is required is differentiating the wavelengths, which also explains red-/blue-shifting. It is subconsciousness that quantizes motion, creating our infinite light spectrum. Of which our finite consciousness is limited to the finite visible portion of that spectrum.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Is the cmb radiation egg an accurate depiction of the universe?

An elliptical shape to the universe would suggest it has linear velocity through the void; no way to know.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Is the exterior space around the egg completely static?

Your guess is as good a mine!

Originally Posted by N0B0DY And is matter an entirely separate existence from space, or is what is commonly known as matter a condensed form of space?

NO - YES

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao water, water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink since my mouth was sealed by the cosmic void destroyer. In this sense, a void is then analogous to an entrance, a door, a gate of some sort that allows moving from here to there or from there to here. Therefore without void, there is no motion and no existence, the universe would be one solid block of dead matter of infinite density.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY;37927I won't say you contradict yourself, but you are being inconsistent with what I remember you stating about the FS which you state again here: "...[I though I do think the void is FS in random linear motion[/i]..." You just seem to not want to believe it, so you proclaim both geometrical spacetime as separate from natural laws and FS as representative of spacetime.

There are no inconsistencies in the above, Nobody. We can not, with knowledge, express the space before first star with geometry, yet we can know through decay mechanics math that just such a FS field exists, without rules/laws, before quantumization, by realizing quantum decay, through total finite universal decay, into its FS. This would be the same background-independence Einstein's deeper theories allude to...

Originally Posted by Nobody With your random linear motion as synonymous to expandable and contractible spacetime, allowing your aerodynamics and thermodynamics to function.

Got a better idea, for space/void before finiteness/quantumization...? The missing laws of physics allow it to be an open game/model...

Originally Posted by Nobody Again, although I see what you're driving at and agree with you for the most part about your contractive quantization method, Einstein stuck by his illusory remarks for a reason. As above, spacetime - past, present, future - are illusory pre-requisites to the conditions and laws you claim are separately real.

No Einstein illusions Nobody, just the facts. Deep relativity is an independent measure system of the real universe's motions of real substance. Einstein fully realized, at that time, humankind did not possess the knowledge, or a-priori logic systems, to see further back, to the total vision of what background-independence truly means. We now possess those abilities, which I have mentioned too many times to repeat...

Originally Posted by Nobody So what type of field model did Einstein advocate?

Time changes the geometry, which also fundamentally interprets into, distance of motion changes space geometry. It's just no-one is realizing the drastic change of space geometry, at the universal event state... Try, and you'll see what I mean...

Originally Posted by Nobody If we take Einstein's words for what they say, and not discard them as him claiming certain things when having a peculiarly bad day, the necessary modes by which we think are the necessary modes by which the conditional fields are built upon.

There's nothing wrong with Einstein's ideas, it's just our wrong interpretations of them. Most all scientists/physicists make the mistake of adding a false space-geometry background, that Einstein never used, i.e., the std. models' ridiculousnesses...

Originally Posted by Nobody I'm more newtonian than einsteinian and smolinian, but it is very easy to incorporate the new-visionary models by quantifying absolute space without altering the absolute state - like a simple white piece of paper contains every possible picture imaginable - all that is required is differentiating the wavelengths, which also explains red-/blue-shifting.

This is fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't include the massive change of space geometry, at the universal event state, from our background-dependent ideas, to the universe's background-independent reality, before the universal event...

Originally Posted by Nobody It is subconsciousness that quantizes motion, creating our infinite light spectrum. Of which our finite consciousness is limited to the finite visible portion of that spectrum.

Subconsciousness quantizes no motion, unless you choose to be that limited in your theoretical visions. Open your eyes to the larger reality, of two space geometries, and you'll quickly see the forest, for the trees... Again, over and over, the finite visible portion of the spectrum___CAN BE A-PRIORI LOGICALLY, EMPIRICALLY & MATHEMATICALLY EXTENDED, WITH DECAY MECHANICS, INTO ITS TRUE BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENCE FIELD, OF RANDOM LINEAR FS MOTIONS...

The background-independence rules,
Lloyd

[Fluent Piffle]

I think void is the most mis-interpreted word in the english language, mainly because it truly doesn't exist, except as a larger definition of space, outside what we know as finite space. That greater space is, in my a-priori logic and math opinions, still FS in motion...

Nice one, Lloyd. I think this is spot on! - You are still here!

Then, we have to determine why it is so mis-understood... The best I can come up with is that it is just another metaphor for that which is as yet unsensed. How about you?



dleviwing Re: The Void
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
water, water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink since my mouth was sealed by the cosmic void destroyer. In this sense, a void is then analogous to an entrance, a door, a gate of some sort that allows moving from here to there or from there to here. Therefore without void, there is no motion and no existence, the universe would be one solid block of dead matter of infinite density.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

- Unfortunately, it is absolutely wrong, as there is no 'thing' that 'allows moving'. Movement is the natural state of existence.

without void, there is no motion

Sorry, but 'void' = no motion, i.e. cannot exist. Otherwise a 'void' would be 'something' that 'moves'!

a void is then analogous to an entrance, a door, a gate of some sort that allows moving from here to there

To some 'heaven', perhaps? Is this the insinuation?

my mouth was sealed by the cosmic void destroyer.

How can a 'void' be destroyed? Surely only by putting 'something' in it!

As Antonio correctly points out, he's brilliant btw

...because he agrees with you?


pif.

[N0B0DY]

"Otherwise a 'void' would be 'something' that moves."

Dave and Lloyd,

Based on the comment above, from pif, I have to avoid this thread. I just have no clue why that would be inferred.

I think we are saying the same things in different ways, but you both seem to be very western-minded in that you would separate mind and body when it really can't be proven that the universe exists without observation.

As an aside, Lloyd, the background-independent theories are background-irrelevant to our debate. I conceded many times, so that you don't have to keep repeating yourself. You just don't understand my references, and brush them off as metaphysical nonsense, when they can be seen in a stricter scientific sense than your relational references that can be classified as metaphysical. Yet, the metaphysical is important in some senses to lead to the new research you claim will resolve all of physics problems.

[dleviwing]

FP
Intellegents is the key; sorry to see you’ve been locked out.