[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner I'd rather not, since most of what you say is pure hyperbola and just contradicts most of what I say which has its roots for the most part in observation, empiricsim and logic.

Baud, you mention what you say has its roots, for the most part, in observation, empiricism and logic, yet your logic does not comply with mathematics. In order for logic to be logic it must be mathematically and observationally provable... If I had it, I'd bet all the money in the world you can not prove the central premise of your own theory - the super-luminal. It is unprovable because it is outside of mathematical logic, just as I said - period!

If I be wrong, please show me the mathematical proof...

"People have screamed god for years. It hasn't made him/her/it appear." me

[WithoutMe]

In your very first post to this topic ("The TOE part one"), you had said: "Before there was anything, there was nothing."

But if that be the case, then there was a coming into being from Nothing, now if that is so, then it was not Nothing that was before anything came into being, coz Nothing is not being anything & if that comes into being, then its certainly not Nothing!!

So, the Nothing which really is Nothing cannot have the parameters of space or time, or having ant parameter would make it something, & if Nothing doesnt have any parameter of space-time, then Nothing cant even evolve (coz it doesnt have the time parameter) & Nothing cannot have any shape or form (coz it doesnt have the space parameter)....

By saying: "Before there was anything, there was nothing.", you are fixing "nothing" to a time-period of "before anything", & how can nothing be fixed to a time, as for fixing anything, that thing to be fixed has to exist first & foremost, whereas if "nothing" exists, then it certainly is not "nothing", coz what exists is something & nothing is simply not something or anything.

What you may instead be saying is that -- instead of using the word "nothing", use the word "nothingness", as "nothingness" means "the property or the phenomenon of being no anything" & that certainly is not in any way same as "nothing"!!! I believe you have misplaced the word "nothingness" with "nothing" -- the two may look similar, but are no way near each other.... oops!

Regards,
wM.