T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[lodestar]

Yes, I would suggest that you start a thread for the purpose of your complete theory. I think it should not be deleted.

I believe that the absolute 1 you're referring to is the same thing as 1/0 which I am referring to. Because 1/0 is the absolute 1 thing that exists outside of infinity just like you said, for it comprises both the positive and the negative infinite. I guess what I mean to say is not that 1/0 is on the edge of infinity, but that negative and positive infinity are at the edge of 1/0. So 1/0 is the everything - more than infinite. Our universe itself is infinite, determined by the speed of light, but our universe itself is not 1/0. 1/0 comprises all things and all universes, not just this one. So is 1/0 the absolute 1 which you are talking about? I believe it is and I believe that you and me have been thinking about the same thing, but what is your opinion on the matter?

kudos, Lee

ps. We can take it up in a new thread if you'd like

[mkirkpatrick]

Eric,I would go along with the suggestion of Lodestar,and start a new thread,with your
views and ideas,that way what you have suggested cannot happen,(deleted posts)
I would indeed support this Eric,and would also contribute to it.

You have some very profound and excellent ideas,these need to be nurtured and
encouraged to grow,here on this forum.

If I may quote you Eric,"reality that the universe is an illusion within"My thoughts exactly!

Just as a small aside the number ten,often referred to as the perfect number,is often
portrayed as a 0circle with the 1 one within it.

kindest regards michael.

[Nobody]

Start a new thread to talk about the same topic. It's been done many times so why not.

This thread stands, still stands, on the logical premise that zero is the only possible absolute, there is no such thing as "one," because everything else is infinite/infinitesimal which cannot be quantized.

[Eric]

Hi guys,

Yes, I know starting a new thread is the obvious thing to do. My apologies to Nobody, by the way. I shouldn't have entered this thread. Good luck with it. I got into this one only because there was a lot of dispute going on and it was ten pages long. But when it comes right down to it, I high-jacked it. My bad, no question.

I did't want to just step right in with my first post being a new thread. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe shyness, maybe testing the water, maybe respect?

Can I safely assume that although my other post was deleted and it was similar to what I've been talking about here, that the mods aren't going to ban me, delete me, or pin the thread, simply because they think I'm talking out of my ass? That a TOE has to follow certain pre-determined physical guidelines or anybody's conception of what it's limits or the limits of science are?

This is not to put myself above anybody, but simply to not waste anybody's time. If I hadn't been deleted, I wouldn't worry about it, because it seems like this forum is open to new ideas.

Michael,

The ten you mention is very interesting. Reality is a 1 with a 0 inside of it and the "reflective illusion" is a 0 with a 1 inside of it. Good one.

By the way, I'm familiar with a lot of what you are familiar with. This TOE thing is way beyond science. It incorporates "all", as "metaphors" within ACTUAL existence. The "figurative" within the LITERAL. Give me a comment on this statement, would you?

I'll have to develop an abstract to begin it with. I have the completed theory, but I don't want to present it as such. It's not about copyright issues, it's about testing it in front of a scientifically oriented audience, and Micheal, you seem to be the perfect person to help support it.

We'll see. I'll PM you when it's posted.

Eric

[lodestar]

Start a new thread to talk about the same topic. It's been done many times so why not.

This thread stands, still stands, on the logical premise that zero is the only possible absolute, there is no such thing as "one," because everything else is infinite/infinitesimal which cannot be quantized.

Just to let you know kindly Nobody, your logical premise completely ignores the number 1/0 which is what mathematicians have also been doing for centuries.

[lodestar]

To Eric,

There is no guarantee that anything you post on this forum will not be deleted or that you will not be banned for having revolutionary ideas. I have had many problems with such occurrences.

I'll tell you my experience. I came here due to what I consider to be a magnanimous realization about the most important and misunderstood number in history, 1/0. I defined this number for the first time in history. I'm not sure what you think (you never answered) but it is my premonition that the absolute "1" which you are referring to is exactly the same notion which I have discovered via the true definition of 1/0. So it is my belief that both you and I are playing with the same ideas. Hopefully this is exciting for you as it is for me. Now due to the correctness of these ideas and people's inability to see the truth I have been chastized and persecuted on this forum by those who refuse to accept the definition of everything in good spirit I have been banned but I still return. My posts are often deleted, and some have even told me that I am "casting pearls before swine," but I ignore that because I have great hope for mankind. So again, if you have stumbled upon an amazing irony of truth, which I believe you probably have, then you will have your work cut out for you, and you cannot be sure that you will not be banned or sometimes deleted. Just a fair warning, but I encourage you not to despair. Nothing can stop destiny and the TOE is destined to be understood by all, even the most reluctant.

If we may, let us collaborate together Eric. I would also like to work together with Mkirkpatrick and you. He is an old and true friend and always a good thinker and he has such a disposition to work well with others who work well with others as well. His concept of the perfect number 10 is the same concept as your absolute "1" and my concept of 1/0. So we all have discovered the same premise for all! This is great news for our insights bolster eachother's! Also I would like to recommend Protheory for our consortium who as well has made an amazing discovery of irony. Protheory are you out there? In addition to this, there is Volantis, who is an incredibly brilliant man who has developed a successfull unified field theory which can derive the elementary charge of the electron. Volantis are you reading? We should collaborate with him as well to make this theory as good as possible. While I'm not sure if he has a similar idea to the 1/0 premise, I'm sure he does, and I know that the symbol for his aether unit is the exact same symbol that I came up with to represent the notion of ALL prior to realizing it was the same thing as 1/0. So there is a common thread taking different forms connecting all of us you see. Anyway, I'm really getting carried away here, but suffice to say there are more than a few good people on this forum and many of us including you are on the same track. So welcome again to the forum Eric, I am super psyched to have you. Do not be afraid to have posts deleted, it is a risk you must take. With all of us promoting the same spiritual/mathematical/physical definition of absolution, it is not much longer that we will be ignored. I look forward to a reply and to seeing how your theory is manifested in its particulars.

sincerely, Lee

Hi guys,

Yes, I know starting a new thread is the obvious thing to do. My apologies to Nobody, by the way. I shouldn't have entered this thread. Good luck with it. I got into this one only because there was a lot of dispute going on and it was ten pages long. But when it comes right down to it, I high-jacked it. My bad, no question.

I did't want to just step right in with my first post being a new thread. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe shyness, maybe testing the water, maybe respect?

Can I safely assume that although my other post was deleted and it was similar to what I've been talking about here, that the mods aren't going to ban me, delete me, or pin the thread, simply because they think I'm talking out of my ass? That a TOE has to follow certain pre-determined physical guidelines or anybody's conception of what it's limits or the limits of science are?

This is not to put myself above anybody, but simply to not waste anybody's time. If I hadn't been deleted, I wouldn't worry about it, because it seems like this forum is open to new ideas.

Michael,

The ten you mention is very interesting. Reality is a 1 with a 0 inside of it and the "reflective illusion" is a 0 with a 1 inside of it. Good one.

By the way, I'm familiar with a lot of what you are familiar with. This TOE thing is way beyond science. It incorporates "all", as "metaphors" within ACTUAL existence. The "figurative" within the LITERAL. Give me a comment on this statement, would you?

I'll have to develop an abstract to begin it with. I have the completed theory, but I don't want to present it as such. It's not about copyright issues, it's about testing it in front of a scientifically oriented audience, and Micheal, you seem to be the perfect person to help support it.

We'll see. I'll PM you when it's posted.

Eric

[Eric]

Hi Lee,

I'm truly sorry I didn't respond to your last post. I had written a response and then decided to incorporate the "whole situation" instead. I meant to say something directly to you, but I forgot.

I did respond to Michael in it, but by the time I got to the end, I was weary and forgot about you. Honestly.

Thanks for this last post, it's very helpful.

Eric

P.S. In the meantime, think about the difference between a "1 divided by 0" and a "1 containing a 0".

[lodestar]

No problem at all Eric, it's easy to forget and I do it sometimes. I'm happy that you have replied. As for the difference between a 1 containing a zero and a 1 divided by zero, I would say it is the same difference. Am I wrong?

In other words, if you have a 1 containing a zero, then the amount of zeros which that 1 contains is 1/0. This amount, 1/0, is the amount of everything, or ALL, the greatest absolute value in mathematics and physical reality and the fusion of positive and negative infinity. This fusion of positive and negative infinity explains the absolute nature of time and energy itself and defines the culmination and completion of theoretical knowledge. Does this sound true to you?

Hi Lee,

I'm truly sorry I didn't respond to your last post. I had written a response and then decided to incorporate the "whole situation" instead. I meant to say something directly to you, but I forgot.

I did respond to Michael in it, but by the time I got to the end, I was weary and forgot about you. Honestly.

Thanks for this last post, it's very helpful.

Eric

P.S. In the meantime, think about the difference between a "1 divided by 0" and a "1 containing a 0".

[Nobody]

Take a look at your graph again, Lode, and you may notice that at the bottom you are suggesting an absolute value results from infinite multiplication. Just like you are suggesting at the other end, that the zero represents the absolute value of infinite division.

What you are not acknowledging, like everyone else it seems, is non existence. This non existence is ignored because it is deemed irrelevant in science, but it nevertheless directs our attention to the fact that the absolutes we both are proclaiming don't exist. Yet I am arguing with you because I have realized that the absolute I am promoting represents the above fact, whereas yours does not.

I am promoting a non-existent absolute, the zero, as being both at the bottom of your graph and at the top. That absolute "nothingness" is the connecting non-dimensional point of the inner and outer, and it serves as a guideline for both scientists and mystics who have been adhering to the "one" instead of the none.

To clarify further, consider logically what happens when we try to imply there is such a thing as a largest and/or smallest number. We make an ass of ourselves because the numbers can increase/decrease infinitely. So there are no such absolute numbers - they don't exist - and for that reason I remain to proclaim the only possible absolute must be represented by that poor and neglected zero.

In other words, those who wish to chase after the "one" absolute will be chasing after it for eternity, whereas the "zero" is already "there" because each and every point of any and all possible measurements is non-dimensional - absolute and non-existent.

The one inside the zero, zero inside the one, is an indicator that relative functioning of infinity is illusory. I.e., it is subjectively-created at the deepest subconscious level, never objective because that is impossible based on the above non-dimensional/non-existent parameters.

[Eric]

Hi Nobody,

...you are suggesting an absolute value results from infinite multiplication. Just like you are suggesting at the other end, that the zero represents the absolute value of infinite division.

If in fact, this is what Lode is suggesting, then I too would have to disagree. You can't infinitely multiply or divide and arrive at a point of 0 or 1.

I am promoting a non-existent absolute, the zero, as being both at the bottom of your graph and at the top.

So why exactly is his zero at the lower end of the scale not right, and your zero at both ends right?

I guess you're saying, his is trying to be absolute and yours isn't?

But then you say this...

I remain to proclaim the only possible absolute must be represented by that poor and neglected zero.

This leaves me a bit confused.

In other words, those who wish to chase after the "one" absolute will be chasing after it for eternity, whereas the "zero" is already "there" because each and every point of any and all possible measurements is non-dimensional - absolute and non-existent.

So are you saying that absolutely nothing exists?

By the way, I hope my chiming in again, is seen as different than before, which I apologized for.

I'm limiting myself to asking very succinct questions about your logic trail.

I'm puposely staying away from inserting any theory of my own.

Eric