[mkirkpatrick]

Complexity arises from the concept on many,never from the one.The T00 theory is about
restoring that ancient highway that leads to the understanding of the One.Over the centuries long past,the One's singular purity has become diluted with false imaginings.

T00 brings into focus that singular intensity which like a magnifying glass burns through
all the apparent dross,to reveal that inner reality of life itself.


tbc




regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I believe Huygens already accomplished that, Lloyd, but RP is a natural when it comes to simplifying things. Have you looked into his site yet?

I've studied every word of it Nobody. Huygens lived long before the butterfly foolishness, sorry, but even Huygens probability math can't be accomplished on all the globe's computers, to come up with that answer. And it seems awful funny that I drive big trucks, in the Northeast, and it doesn't cause hurricanes...? How do foolish little butterflies? Too many people have far too vivid an imagination...

Lloyd

[Profpat]

Hi Lloyd;

Don't you have to get metaphysical to cover "Everything".

When you are down to the one dimensional planck's length particles, and a universe that is flat with no sides, which may be infinite but then again maybe not....which may have multiverses...created or steady state...

It appears that you have to get metaphysical
"beyond physics", because our physical reality becomes more like a conceptual reality, with laws, no with theories governing them such as probability theory, at the point where we can no longer accurately measure. And so we rely on theories, based on logic from whatever evidence we are able to obtain.

Now if you line up 8 different theoritical physicists, with the same evidence, you'll get 8 different answers. ( Something which was true only for economist ).

So best to all,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Prof, there's no reason either one of them couldn't be used, iff we parsed our linguistics/semantics/language properly, as to subject matter. It's just everyone seems to want to stick to one field or the other. I years ago used both fields, and failed miserably to reach any audience, therefore from that experience, I learned to write to each audience differently, then finally settled on the scientific over the metaphysical, as the only root that seemed possible to me...

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Lloyd; Don't you have to get metaphysical to cover "Everything".[Yes and no. It all comes down to how the linguistics is parsed.] When you are down to the one dimensional planck's length particles, and a universe that is flat with no sides, which may be infinite but then again maybe not....which may have multiverses...created or steady state... It appears that you have to get metaphysical[My method is to take the metaphysical out of the above, as many ideas mentioned can be removed with dynamic atomic decay math and mechanics of aether/matter and mass densities.] "beyond physics", because our physical reality becomes more like a conceptual reality, with laws, no with theories governing them such as probability theory,[I didn't say probability theory, I stated probability math, I think...] at the point where we can no longer accurately measure.[That's the thing___We can accurately measure, with atomic decay math.] And so we rely on theories, based on logic from whatever evidence we are able to obtain.[I do not accept that. A-priori logic is one quite valid field, with evidence, and I say the evidence is possible with the accuracy of atomic decay maths. It's just it hasn't been taken seriously, as of yet. Hawking did much of this math from the `70's on, yet seems to have abandoned, what was a very useful field of investigation. We must resume his work, with the accuracy accorded us of the cesium clocks, then we may discover we are able to prove much more than is presently evident. It just seems hard to get peoples' minds to prioritize information processing, to the correct measure instruments, and laws of physics available. If we narrow our investigations, for a moment, to the cesium clock, aether/matter densities and time distances, we can surely make headway. But, I fear not until we do. To get there, it seems we have these semantical/linguistic and parsing hurdles to surmount. So I trudge on.] Now if you line up 8 different theoritical physicists, with the same evidence, you'll get 8 different answers.[Agreed.] ( Something which was true only for economist ).[Also agreed. All seem to have trouble prioritizing the most useful and pertinant information to base thier ideas on. I hear you loud and clear, but have the optomism to think we will get there, after a while. After studying inter-disciplinary information for years, I came to see how slow the clock of truth truly works. History has shown it taking 100 to 300 years for true ideas and laws to actually be respected by any majority of inhabitants. Yet, with the web, we are accelerating the process___considerably. Keep on trucking___It's all we can do.] So best to all, Pat

Thanks Pat,
Lloyd

[Profpat]

Good answer Lloyd;

All you can ask is, have you considered it, and you have, and thats wisdom.

I try to maintain a balance ( the accountant in me ), and remain open to all ideas, though most I dismiss.

You'll have to guide me to your theory, ( in the atomic decay, are you referring to the 1/2 life ? )

I know Little Feather said you were very helpful to him. You are a true toequester, Lloyd.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Profpat Good answer Lloyd; All you can ask is, have you considered it, and you have, and thats wisdom. I try to maintain a balance ( the accountant in me ), and remain open to all ideas, though most I dismiss. You'll have to guide me to your theory, ( in the atomic decay, are you referring to the 1/2 life ? ) I know Little Feather said you were very helpful to him. You are a true toequester, Lloyd. Best, Pat

Pat, sorry, but I just downloaded a bunch of sites' info for you, then lost it with one false move of the mouse. I'll try again, later. I'll just list one or two for now: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/timescales.html
and: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

Better info later,
Lloyd

[mkirkpatrick]

All-thing is the BE-ing that is the T0T theory,like the law of deminishing returns,whats left
when all illusion and "appearances"are removed is "The Thing"That Thing of which "we" all
live in and have our be-ing by the way!

The more we understand consciousness,and realize that it underlies all reality,perceived,
and unperceived,the easier it is to grasp the singular of Thing,and release the false notion
of the idea of things.



tbc



regards michael.

[Profpat]

Lloyd;

I read the 2 links you posted and I understood them.
Thank you.

So if your point is that man can make some very impressive measurements, I'm impressed.
The fact that we can split a second into over 9 billion cycles, and the fact that they are kept in a vacuum which is 10 trillionths of an atmosphere, are very accurate.

As impressive as that is, I watched a TV program that said, with the cesium clock and GPS they still don't have the accuracy to land a jet on an aircraft carrier pilotless.
I guess they are within 60' but you have to be within 20' to land one of those babies.
And that takes man, even more impressive, then the measurements, he came up with.
It will be nice, I guess, when we can send out the arms, without the troops.

Best to all,

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

This thread seems to be taking of with a life of its own! It almost seems T00 good to be true?

Identifying with the One,is identifying with the reality of what you,we,"I" are,that being so
when we do identify with this reality at depth,it brings in its train a rush,and surge of energy,like re-cognising like,kin re-cognising kin,this brings excitement and a sense of
be-ing one step closer to Home?

T00 takes us to the portal of recognising what we Really Are,as opposed to what we think we are!

tbc


regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pat, the military declasified the accuracy side of GPS in 2000, and I myself have used the new gps systems, surveying, to the accuracy of 10'ths of an inch. So, I'd say the information you stated is considerably outdated, from the days of accuracy classification, as I also flew in those days, of no more than 6ft to 20ft inaccuracy, and it certainly coundn't be used, pre-2000, for surveying, without ground accurizers, which we also used, as far back as 1993, on the Boston Big Dig Tunnel project. We actually had on board computerized positioning, with ground corrected accuracy, to 10ths of an inch, even in 1993. The military released the secrecy codes for large government projects. We are now fast approaching the ability to do just what you stated___landing jets pilotless on carriers, and conducting air-combat pilotless. In fact the military is presently working on this generation of flight... Going to be a foolishly interesting future of wars... Time will tell...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by Profpat Lloyd; I read the 2 links you posted and I understood them. Thank you. So if your point is that man can make some very impressive measurements, I'm impressed. The fact that we can split a second into over 9 billion cycles, and the fact that they are kept in a vacuum which is 10 trillionths of an atmosphere, are very accurate. As impressive as that is, I watched a TV program that said, with the cesium clock and GPS they still don't have the accuracy to land a jet on an aircraft carrier pilotless. I guess they are within 60' but you have to be within 20' to land one of those babies. And that takes man, even more impressive, then the measurements, he came up with. It will be nice, I guess, when we can send out the arms, without the troops. Best to all, Pat