[N0B0DY]

Your latter statement would be what all my barking is about, Mohan. It doesn't exist and no observer would be possible nor would would any objective reality be there to observe.

The reduction of time would result in infinite speed or velocity because absolute speed is beyond infinite speed. I'm glad that someone understands this point.

Though instead of reversing the time, which does make sense now that you mention it, it can be considered also as the creation of forward time from no time.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick You can have an eternal repeating cycle Mohan! regards michael.

Yeah may be there can be an eternal repeating cycle. But someone must have started it. A cycle cannot start going itself. someone should peddle it first?

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Your latter statement would be what all my barking is about, Mohan. It doesn't exist and no observer would be possible nor would would any objective reality be there to observe. The reduction of time would result in infinite speed or velocity because absolute speed is beyond infinite speed. I'm glad that someone understands this point. Though instead of reversing the time, which does make sense now that you mention it, it can be considered also as the creation of forward time from no time.

But isnt it again the same. Whether we consider time or distance its all same. They are both relativistic. And time is also just a measure of distance(Actually that is how I've understood time as the fourth dimension. Time as a measure of distance). But to consider the creation of forward time from no time. Then absolute speed is enough, i mean the speed of light and it isn't infinite.

[N0B0DY]

It depends on how we interpret absolute and infinite I think, Mohan. In science there are absolute values, but are not referring to the same philosophical interpretation as having a singular substance, speed, density, etc.. When the latter interpretation is used, the infinite number of absolute values of science become the same. The absolute, I liken to the largest and smallest number which is beyond the infinite range of numbers that become larger and larger or smaller and smaller. It can be said that the largest is one, with all the scientific absolutes being fractions in between one and zero, which is where the ancient concepts of the "one" and "void" come from. You will notice that the largest and lowest become the same state, which is how I equate the one and zero.

The speed of light then, if absolute in the philosophical sense, is beyond infinite velocity. So any reduction in this absolute speed allows for an infinite number of velocities. There can be zero velocities that result from point particles in circular motion, whereby there is no change in direction; and there can be zero velocities from point particles that aren't moving. The absolute speed gives the shape of stuff in the former case, when the angular momentum is observed, because the point is at all points around the spheres; and in the latter case, Newton's absolute speed shrinks Einstein's spacetime to zero. From this point we need non-zero velocities of light (within detectable range) to carry the information of the random events in the universe.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Yeah may be there can be an eternal repeating cycle. But someone must have started it. A cycle cannot start going itself. someone should peddle it first?

I think we both know who the prime peddler is my friend?



regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick I think we both know who the prime peddler is my friend? regards michael.

Lets assume i don't know michael(And may be i certainly don't know), How would you prove your point who the peddler is.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY It depends on how we interpret absolute and infinite I think, Mohan. In science there are absolute values, but are not referring to the same philosophical interpretation as having a singular substance, speed, density, etc.. When the latter interpretation is used, the infinite number of absolute values of science become the same. The absolute, I liken to the largest and smallest number which is beyond the infinite range of numbers that become larger and larger or smaller and smaller. It can be said that the largest is one, with all the scientific absolutes being fractions in between one and zero, which is where the ancient concepts of the "one" and "void" come from. You will notice that the largest and lowest become the same state, which is how I equate the one and zero. The speed of light then, if absolute in the philosophical sense, is beyond infinite velocity. So any reduction in this absolute speed allows for an infinite number of velocities. There can be zero velocities that result from point particles in circular motion, whereby there is no change in direction; and there can be zero velocities from point particles that aren't moving. The absolute speed gives the shape of stuff in the former case, when the angular momentum is observed, because the point is at all points around the spheres; and in the latter case, Newton's absolute speed shrinks Einstein's spacetime to zero. From this point we need non-zero velocities of light (within detectable range) to carry the information of the random events in the universe.

So, is it like the numbers are limits whose absolute values can never be approached, so they become infinite.

[N0B0DY]

That's it exactly. Mohan. When we merge physics and metaphysics, the absolute values can no longer exist. All of them are considered fractional and infinitely-reducible; like a hole can be reduced to an infinite number of smaller holes, and a solid into an infinite number of smaller solids. So the metaphysical absolute can be likened to the state of the universe either consisting of just a hole or just a solid - both the absolutely empty state and absolutely full state are the exact same impenetrable state.

Needless to say, this absolute state doesn't and can't exist, and therefore I propose only relative states exist. Yet, because the relative states must exist within something in order to exist, and there is no existent container for them to exist in, I conclude that the relative states are an illusion of time; where time is created by slowing down, or rather extracting measured velocities from absolute speed.

It is a very simple time-dependent theory, that has potential because only finite amounts are needed and "nothing" is the equivalent of the whole amount - again, even beyond infinite energy, mass, space, time, etc.. We need not extract unobservable everything, or an unobservable infinite amount, only extract the observable finite amount in the proper fashion.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Lets assume i don't know michael(And may be i certainly don't know), How would you prove your point who the peddler is.

I can prove nothing to you my friend,and neither can you!We either accept an idea
presented to us,or reject it,as they say in marines,you pays your money and you
takes your choice!



regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick I can prove nothing to you my friend,and neither can you!We either accept an idea presented to us,or reject it,as they say in marines,you pays your money and you takes your choice! regards michael.

Ok Michael I will neither accept it or reject it,
Then lets just assume there was a peddler who started a cycle.
What kind of a cycle do you think it is,
A cycle of life, a cycle of thought???? What could it be A cycle of creation and annihilation or a big cycle of growth in which each part has to grow to make the whole thing grow??? What could it be????