[RascalPuff]

'Stillness'?
Hmmmm...
Do you mean that which is abjectly bereft of motion, Nobody?
Isn't that among the unfindable conditions in the known universe?
I thought we contemplated it only by its conspicuous absence from observed space of any description...

Can't fathom any place where there ain't no space...
Can you?
If so, please let us know...

Best regards,
- RP

(Black holes are not retreating from the Schwartzchild radii, they're just charging in the other direction? Microcosmic infinity is as endless as macrocosmic...? Then there's the logarithm within the Golden Rectangle, which has only begun to be understood. I find Planck's constant in there, as an example that there are many more questions and answers, nearly all of which are so obvious they're being overlooked, and/or prematurely rejected.)

[N0B0DY]

I mean just that, RP, and no I can't fathom it. Yet I can't fathom space being everywhere either, only the space that is disparately observed as a result of relativity, that would be by definition opposite an absolute perspective. So I don't wish to jump to conclusions by forcing the universe to abide by limited human perspective, but to continue to contemplate the reason for its absence, which would lead to the cause of expansion.

Lloyd has been the only one who tried to reason with a change in direction from microcosmic infinity to macrocosmic infinity, and I disagreed that there is a point of return based on wave interference - the waves keep on going in.

I think rather wave interference in the opposing directions you mentioned completely cancel because the amplitudes from both directions would "eventually" perfectly match. Althhough when we invoke eternity there is no such thing as eventually because it must be logically based on a finite period of time - re: Zeno's Paradox vs Planck Length. So instead of saying eventually, I suggest that the event horizon carries throughout all "eternity," which renders the above perfect match instantaneous, and the universe absolutely still.

I'm sure it's as clear as mud, but it's very difficult to explain. It's the best I can do.

[N0B0DY]

Just as an aside to perhaps clarify things, if I may, RP. When you ask if I can fathom a place without space, maybe we can consider your space without field and correlate it to the above explanation regarding motion.

I had been through this I think a few times, and now remember suggesting to think in terms of absolute fullness of space.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Just as an aside to perhaps clarify things, if I may, RP. When you ask if I can fathom a place without space, maybe we can consider your space without field and correlate it to the above explanation regarding motion. I had been through this I think a few times, and now remember suggesting to think in terms of absolute fullness of space.

If I may inject a word or two here Nobody.The absolute fullness of the universe,In a
thread I posted "The universe is choca block full"I explored this very thing,the universe
is So full that you could not find enough "space" to squeeze a dollar bill through!



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Yes, that's what I mean, Michael.

If it is absolutely full, in my mind it has to be absolutely still because there is no room or space to allow for movement.

An analogy once given to me was that the ocean is full, but still moves. Yet the water only moves because there is space between and within the molecules.

What we are suggesting here is that the molecules of the water is created from space in motion itself, so what is "it" that allows for this fundamental spatial motion.

[mkirkpatrick]

Nobody,I think that one simple answer to this motion business is simply that we are fooled
by the illusion of motion,there is really as you and I suspect no movement ever,I am
reminded of another thread I posted entitled The idea of movement when you are ubiquitous is ridiculous,"where could you possibly go where you were not already present
at?

The whole implication of motion is that there is "somewhere" to go,but if you are
ominipresent that is a "non-starter."

Another paradox arises here,we are so "deeply" locked into the surface of "things"
that we fail to cognise the absolute unity at depth,and also fail to see the other arising
paradox "what is the ultimate in unity"? When all is absolutly unified,the relative doorway
closes shut,all motion ceases and noumena is "ON" and phenomena is "Off".

Because we see with relative eyes we are trapped in illusion and wil'o the wisps,all around
us "moves" and we are deceived,when we can actually understand indivisibility,and fully
comprehend inclusiveness,then that stony path that leads to understanding will open up.

There IS but "IS" when that is understood,all motion is stopped,forever.

regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Not sure which one of us would be guilty of copyright violation, Michael, but there's nothing I would disagree with in your above assessment.

What I'm after now is the reason behind the illusory motion that is observed. We can't just pull things out of a magic hat, but must logically extend observable laws to the absolute point where those laws cease along with all logical concepts.

I try to follow scientific, both theoretical and empirical, implications in order to fit them together, and as it stands the "commonless center" that would essentially be required to be in continuous motion doesn't work in my mind.

If there is a common center, then many of the proposals would work without a problem with regards to motion, but in that case there arises an exterior spatial problem. So eradicating both spatial and temporal problems is a tough task that I thought RP might be able to solve in a literal fashion so we can make things real.

What he offers is still lingering, and I'm not sure if it would work or not. His references to the Golden Ratio got me thinking, but then got me thinking of numerology, astrology, the reason that .999... equals 1, etc.. For me, there is a difference between what is defined as finite, what is undefined as infinite, and absolute "one" and "none."

If we consider the Fibonacci sequence: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55... you'll notice that 0 + 0 does not equal 1. If we use 0, unlike any other number, carrying throughout: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0... you'll notice that 0 + 0 equals 0. This is the absolute carriage I was referring to, as opposed to Zeno's concept of motionlessness which is based on infinity instead of absolute carriage.

Similarly, 0/0 can represent both the above absolutes, "1" and "0," and also any fraction in between (representative of infinity) because 0 multiplied by any number equals 0; and any number divided by itself equals 1. No other equation works, and it creates a problem for thinking in terms of a literal absolute.

[N0B0DY]

"There IS but "IS" when that is understood,all motion is stopped,forever."

You're no doubt familiar with the expression, "Beyond both existence and non existence." Would you reckon it's fair to conceive of the "IS" and the "IS NOT" as being equal?

Essentially the fullness/vacuous consideration would pertain to "that" which isn't, which is where the mind starts to melt.

[mkirkpatrick]

Great stuff Nobody,I really like what you are saying,in fact I think you have hit the nail on the head! The spiral,Fibonacci sequence,life exihibits itself in spirals,the spiral is the
signature of "IS",If you look closely at the spirals on a shell,you will see that they always
begin with a point? galaxies are exactly the same,the ratio is perfect,only slightly larger!

Now the point is the circle or 0 and the line between is the 1,so you have 0-1-0 this forms
the twin spirals of Ying and Yang,so the sequence is something like this-0-Ying-down-1
up 1 Yang-0-off =motionless- Absolute-unity-on =motion-relativity-illusion.

A Mobius strip much like an escalator,round and round until we become fully realised
then we stop-Dead!



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Good response, Michael.

I am now wondering if the point at the beginning of the shell would be found throughout all points of the shell, and what that would lead to in terms of the existence of the starting point and the shell.