[Profpat]

Thanks RP;

I made a copy and i'll stare into it hoping for enlightenment.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Rascal Thanks.

I just noticed the 3 circles in venn diagram format. emitting or expanding.

Pat

[N0B0DY]

I agree. Another great depiction, RP.

I would only add: points of gravity, to strings, to quarks, to protons, via the Higgs Boson or Graviton/Photon (spin 0, if we are to truly equate gravity and electromagnetism) is acceptable if we forget about the attractive force, which, if I'm not mistaken, can be thought of as built-in.

Combining de Sitter space and Minkowski space would break the absolute speed of the Higgs field at the imaginary zero-point axes which would result in the relative velocities that could be depicted by the chart. We would have to revert to relativistic mass, kinetic energy, forget about all confusing particles, including the electron, and have only to deal with the variability of a type of Higgs force - perhaps likened to an aetheric force.

If I understand you correctly, RP, the forces are due to the difference between the potential momentum of all objects in the form of field densities and the greater or lesser exterior momentum that would push densities together or apart. Is that about right?

The three strings could be considered as three forces: positive, negative and neutral; zero points are always pushing against each other, with some frequencies penetrating each other to form lines and others interacting to form magnetic fields at all scales in the form of spheres - sort of like the mushroom clouds of nuclear explosions.

[RascalPuff]

"If I understand you correctly, RP, the forces are due to the difference between the potential momentum of all objects in the form of field densities and the greater or lesser exterior momentum that would push densities together or apart. Is that about right?"

Haven't heard or thought of better translations than those provided by you, Nobody. Yes, there are important roles of positive and negative inertia. Action-reaction.

It's good to see your aggressive intepretations, all the way around. Inspiration reciprocating inspiration.

Like you, the Prof has many questions worthy of answering and questioning.
Still pondering.
(I think we're on a doughnut shaped - all terrain - torus roll?)

- RP

[Profpat]

Is that donut in the shape of a mobius strip ?

So what are photons attracted to ? I thought they were chargeless ( like I am on occasion ) and therefore neither attractive nor repulsive.
Rather the photon is created when mass is converted to energy. The positive negative moment happened at the time of annihilation or fission.

The photon is viewed as the mediator of the force, isn't it ?

Well once again you have me confused Nobody, so if Somebody could elucidate, please do.

Best to all,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nobody,

I’ll see what I can do about the ultimate TON picture
when I get to the ninja base,
although it may, as you say, be difficult to portray.
For now, people are still discussing it and I need to

Attempt to Understand This Thread’s Theory of Nothing

Is it the case that

all is relative to nothing, since

there is no time and no form (space), that is,
all is timeless-formless and just is,

(and always was, is now, and ever will be,
but since these notions are time-based
and came later, I am saying that it just is,
but that it exists by its being)

but exists in a way that is counterintuitive to us,
that is, as what would appear as a nothing to us,
but has “real” potential and/or possibility,
this absolute vacuum (to us) using this potential
to differentiate itself from itself,
and is thus real in some new sense of real,
since its timelessness state necessitates that
all happens at once,
with all possible forms
of the formlessness having to be formed,

all such virtualness being recreated
over an infinite number of non-dimensional points,
much like an animation on a computer screen,
there being two different perspectives:
one more expansive
than any infinity we could imagine,
the other more contractive
than any point we could imagine,

although still adding up to
our present concept of nothing,
and that our universe and lives have
already happened, although not necessarily
deterministically (true?), all having evolved from
the virtual “particles” of the opposite
and ever canceling forward light and backward gravity,
for mass minus gravity is zero, mass being light,
like Yin + Yang = Tao, or as in 1 - 1 = 0,

carrying an infinite number of different universal states,
all things evolving as seemingly real stuff would have,
as science has recorded,
us arriving accidently
through evolution( accidently or destined?),
but instantly,

as well as our subconscious
which came to be able to slow down
the timeless-formless instant-of-all-form
because it must process slower than light,
due to a slowing down from the
centripetal forces that form the atom,
and our subconscious thus generates
the “time” of the only apparent-to-us
billions of years that it seems to have taken
for everything to have “formed” in the universe,

again because of the dilated interpretation
by the subconscious’s delayed processing
of all the possibilities of the probabilities
of all the forms happening in no time
from the timeless-formless,
which is all that really is,
from a cause yet defined as real to us,

the whole expression of it, for some reason,
straying from the perfect universal “DNA”,
perhaps due either to it’s own limitations(true?)
or to some unforeseeable interactions along the way,
resulting in imperfect replication,
such as sometimes happens
with our own DNA.

Sincerely,
somebody

[N0B0DY]

That about covers it in its entirety, Austin, except for it existing by its being. I guess some would classify it, whatever the heck it is, as being existent and non-existent in different places, or as being beyond both existence and non existence. I refer to it as non-existent, but it may be a type of antimatter that would be beyond both matter and no matter. Perhaps the energy from that antimatter would give cause to the expansion on this side of this twisted pretzel. Though the exact cause has seemed to stump most folks for quite some time.

You have quite a brain in there btw, Austin.

[Profpat]

Austin;

I think you have it (somewhere in those words ).

Just put the alphabet on a T shirt and somewhere in correct formation of those letters will be the truth.

Best,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, if you're full, I can still divide you with a sword...

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

We must ask ourselves though, if we seek the truth, can that absolutely full "substance" really be divided? I say that it can't, which renders all notions of separation incorrect.

As quoted to Fredrick;

You and Geoff equate the many and the one, but I equate the one and the none

Only abstractly, which is metaphysics___Which doesn't apply to science. No science___No theory...

Originally Posted by Nobody

Not sure what to say, Fredrick, to explain my "point of no point." You continue to separate existence and non existence; illusion and reality; everything/something/anything and nothing. With regards to understanding this, I guess to follow the words of the way we can say that which can be understood is not the ultimate understanding.

It boils down to the scientific, religious and philosophical notions of the one, which is proclaimed to be an alternative answer to understanding the world through the many. Yet the one is misleading because it leads to notions of a static unknown something, space, dimension, whatever, that exists, which then naturally becomes relative to non existence.

My proclamation is that the many, the one, and the none (as an existing state) do not exist. The fine line between the infinite and the absolute can be compared to the fine line between the tao (undefinable) and wu ji (non existence).

The tao is said to be unseeable, just like an infinitesimal point, but logically if something exists, half of that would exist as well eventhough it can never be verified because it is the ingredients of phenomenal nature. The wu ji, or absolute, is similar because it cannot be detected either, but logically it does not exist as a phenomenon.

The taichi is the relative functioning of the illusory yin/yang polarity division, evidently discovered in physics as dipolarity and psychology as bipolarity. The infinite number of dreams made real through this conscious process, one of which is this observable universe, is transcended only through the "gateway of mysteries" which is the wu ji (unconsciousness). Whereby the great inexpressible Tao is realized as the perfect dream made real, based on perfect knowledge of all possible consequences of the taichi functioning.

I agree, it's quite a struggle, but I guess it's our destiny to be "here."

Take your mind out of it, and you'll understand it Nobody___And not until... The universe produced the mind, not the other foolish way around...

Originally Posted by Nobody

With regards to the undefined, I would think that scientists would just go ahead and define it as one. Yet the undefinible infinite fractions and non-existent absolute zero differ, where any dimensionless quantity could be classified as one and raised to the power of zero (which would be one). There is an a priori one allotted to measurements that allow one to be used mathematically, whereas zero renders all measurements void of measurement which is my "point" entirely. I think it was Paul Dirac who said that infinities should not be neglected if the result is too large, and in this respect it understandably pertains to the undefined.

I guess ultimately, my argument is against calling the empty set a set, because it is simultaneously both bound and unbound.

MJA,

I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that there is existence without observation because it would require someone, anyone, to observe reality without observing it. Yes, the same must apply to my argument.

I think that nature is wrong because it breeds pain, and people buy into it because "feeling is believing" they say. It's a sick mind game as a by product of perfection, and even if nobody was a somebody I still wouldn't truly exist.

Talk about mind games___What do you think you're playing...? And beliefs?___Religious beliefs...? Your's...?

Originally Posted by Nobody

The crux of the toe matter though, again, is based on the unification of forces which I proclaim negates motion which is synonymous to non-existence. It takes no time and motion for the absolute universe to reach all the way over "there" and come back "here," but it takes individuals time and motion. If at the absolute center of all individuals there is that substanceless substances that "propagates" in no time, we must then be absolutely the same as the non-existent universe. If there is some infinitesimal gathering that we consist of, then propagation and observations would be restricted to a particular rate of energy exchange - perhaps we can call it "c."

It would be nice to enclose your wild metaphysics inside of science, since we know science actually produced the metaphysical world. This section is about the TOE, but the correct order of evolution should be respected, don't you think...?

Originally Posted by Nobody

It might for some, but I'm afraid it doesn't for me, Pat. I like to follow the implications of science which make the most sense from the most angles, and a black holes and a big bang don't fit into the equation. http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200

Observations are very misleading, to the point that warpable spacetime can give us a warped sense of reality. I had said in the previous posting that the absolute universe is fully folded and refined ageeably simplistically preventing space warps.

Consider the heat radiation that would escape simultaneous and proportionate to the accelerated mass while a black hole would form according to Kirchoff's law - what goes in, must come out - explaining the observed radiation from the centers of galaxies, that would prevent a black hole from forming. High-energy electrons going in and high-energy positrons coming out resulting in high-energy photons/gravitons that essentially go nowhere because the process occurs everywhere, where the effects are negated relative to the infinite number of variable frequencies.

I equate antimatter with dark matter, and equate dark energy with the gravitational force that confines the antimatter at the strong-force scale. In other words, all points are infinitesimal event horizons where time stands still, gravitational waves propagate in backward time from one event horizon to another, and electromagnetic waves propagate in forward time from one event horizon to another. It's true the waves are the same, just like electrons and positrons are the same, one merely goes one way and the other the other way. I know, there are no "ways." It's all abstract.

Of course there are the red/blue shifts relative to energy densities, which can be explained as was done in many previous postings, whereby it takes light longer to propagate through higher densities than lower densities. Eventhough distant galaxies are already in your eyeballs at both undetectible/infinite and absolute frequencies, detectible frequencies relative to the quantized photons you are capable of absorbing into your retinae can take billions of years to reach you.

I don't think universal symmetry can be broken, but I agree with you that the illusory breech is based on gravitational dilation which creates the impression of time and particles and variable waves. And I also agree that we have the essence of perfection within us, though how deep within us is debatable.

You talk against absolute positions, yet you sure have em___What is this if not absolute metaphysics, without science...?

I don't think that the universe has a self-based nature, based on logical deduction, but I can understand what you mean. Similar to what MJA suggested, that the universe would exist if there were no observers, a self-based universe would exist in and of itself.

In order to prove that the universe exists without observation, you would have to refer to empirical information which is based on observations. I can't prove that the universe doesn't exist, but I don't have as much of a burden of proof because my claim is based on non-existence with or without observers.

Unlike observations based on literal motion, I propose abstract time dilation - absolute speed slowed down - gives the impression/observation of relative velocities of gravity and light responsible for the "creation" of mass and its decay over time.

Fredrick hits the nail on the head, and you try to negate the un-negatable___Come on Nobody, get with the program___It's a self-based universe, and your mind/ego is just some of the smallest bits produced by the greater universal evolution. It's all Darwinian physics, from photons to your absolute ego... No matter how hard you try, you can not negate the absolute universe___It is... Just look up___It exists... Look in___It exists...

The problem remains, for me, because when we posit expansion in all directions and a simultaneous contraction in all directions, all that remains plausible is that original void we both speak of. I therefore think that the observable motion is somehow due to finite consciousness based on the infinite division of the void by subconsciousness, and models will have to have quantum consciousness incorporated in order for me to understand concepts of motion.

Nobody, that's mostly metaphysics, and you can't explain the universe with metaphysics, which is the problem with Geoff's site. Take your subconsciousness out of the picture, by realizing matter produces mind, then redo your physics and metaphysics, then the science becomes clear. It's a real world and universe, whether expanding or contracting, it's absolutely real matter/energy producing mind and spirit. An old-timer told me a long time ago that, "The absolute law of least matter/energy action, absolutely had to produce all the universe's greater laws. Now, this is only common sense, based on actual matter and energy"___No other theory will suffice...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

No problem at all, Pat. I ask scientists what the universe is made of, and religionists what god is made of, all the time to see if the answers are similar to mine.

In the east, mind, body and spirit are different refinements of the same substance. The invisible particles and forces of science correlate with the unseen presence and power of god, where essentially science bears witness to the functioning of god.

I don't have a problem with god overcoming its evil side through a sacrificial body that leaves nothing but the perfect holy spirit. The same applies to humans on a lesser scale where individuals eventually overcome the evil tendencies of the mind through sacrificial reincarnation of the body, and marry the holy spirit.

All three, and the process, are eternal and have been realized in no time at all. Yet inquiring minds want to know what everything is about, what is required to merge with the holy spirit, and how long it's going take. Perhaps an eternity.

The alpha and omega, the almighty "amen" is synonymous to the sacred hindu word "aum." That sacred word that was with god in the beginning, and the word was god, and the light of which all things are made. Whereby no one returns to the father, but by the light.

Now if we connect that light of religion with the light (photons) of science, where no one returns to the source except through the absolute knowledge (information) carried by photons to the point the photons meet gravitons and become none with the void, in order to become one with the holy spirit, we can all rest assured trusting we will all be happy campers.

Except for the one greatest problem in the world; Exclusionism of the truth. And this is where all religious/metaphysical ideas break down. They want exclusion of the truth to rule the world, just as all ancient forms of religion tried to do for years, and now we have fools like Osama and Dubya, plus all the other metaphysicists, trying to do the same thing___Let's exclude science from our debates, then we'll have a better world___I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I know it's not so. I'll take inclusion of the truths, and build a better world, just as our founding fathers, here in America, advocated over 200 years ago. Religions/ancient forms of government should be dashed off to the scrapheap of history, and the boys at the U.N. should get off their keesters, and write international laws outlawing exclusionary religious systems, and all forms of exclusionary nonsense. Then maybe the world can start to progress, again, less the pollution of linguistic mis-understandings, prejudices, racism and hatreds... Injustice is far to sorely worshiped in science___This must change...

There's a concept of a breathing universe, in the form of big bang and big crunch cycles. Not sure if the big bang represents the inhalation or exhalation, but it is based on a central universal point of contraction and expansion with no outside to this inflatable point.

There are different big bang scenarios, but all have a common center that can justify the big bang. Even if the bang was a one-time deal, Lloyd's proposed contraction by cold can produce the necessary condition for expansion.

It is the cause for the inflationary era prior to the big bang that cannot be justified because the expansion is said to occur everywhere in infinite space. For those like myself who don't believe in the big bang arising from eternally existing matter, there is a required cause for the inflation.

I have tried to find a cause on the space and motion site, and on RP's as to how outwaves are produced from centers that are everywhere. I have yet to find any plausible explanations, and it leaves me no choice than to proclaim that the universe is static.

Then that still leaves you with explaining not one thing, now doesn't it...?

Originally Posted by Nobody

There is no choice but for the above-mentioned non existence to be divided by non existence - 0/0 - which is what I propose is the only equation possible to explain both the absolute changeless state and abstractly changing states. It can represent 0, 1, 2, 3, to infinity because any number, including 0 multiplied by 0 equals 0.

Non existence being divided by abstract numbers represents illusory division without literally changing the absolute state.

Your mistake is in failing to connect abstract mathematics to real and absolute matter/energy. All is clear as soon as you do... You keep mis-interpreting me because of your false linguistic fundamentals... It's as simple as that...