T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Is it possible to stop to the ride so I can get off, please?

I don't follow what type of motion you're referring to with regards to B. Isn't one step forward or in an arcward fashion, a step into the future from the present?

I'm trying to consider a few of the einsteinian implications of illusory timeframes relative to an aether that doesn't move and, contrary to present conceptions, isn't required to move.

[RascalPuff]

Is it possible to stop to the ride so I can get off, please?

I don't follow what type of motion you're referring to with regards to B. Isn't one step forward or in an arcward fashion, a step into the future from the present?

I'm trying to consider a few of the einsteinian implications of illusory timeframes relative to an aether that doesn't move and, contrary to present conceptions, isn't required to move.

Moment B is in a constant state of accelerating expansion, in the 'eternal now'.

The remainder of the offered scenario, precedes and follows.

It ain't likely that the ride will stop.

We'll leave the light on for you?

- RP

[N0B0DY]

Understood, RP. The ride will never stop for observers, but I wanted to differentiate between conscious perceptions of the presence of mind and body via gravitational mass due to expansion, as you say; and the point where there is no concept of time from what would be an absolute frame of reference.

A semi-accurate analogy might be like a film that is fast-forwarded to represent expansion; a film that is played to represent a type of inertial drag; and pause, or the film in its entirety, to represent the absolute frame.

I'm don't oppose expansion in the sense that Zeno would, suggestive of the drag never catching up to the expansion, or lesser scale overtaking a larger one, from an observer's point of view. Only in the sense that the drag is an illusory effect of gravity because there is no gravitational effect on the absolute universe.

Nothing would change from what is proposed in your theory, except if made abstract we can correlate consciousness with gravitational time as well.

[N0B0DY]

I didn't want to bugger up your other thread with the following, perhaps off-topic reference, RP. It might explain better, my view of the matter.

"Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense-Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment.

"Accelerational frame dragging is the similarly inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to acceleration. Although it arguably has equal theoretical legitimacy to the "rotational" effect, the difficulty of obtaining an experimental verification of the effect means that it receives much less discussion and is often omitted from articles on frame-dragging (but see Einstein, 1921)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

The transition would be something along the lines of the substratum of a massive body being atomic; the substratum of the atomic, subatomic; of the subatomic, forceful; of the forceful, virtual; of the virtual, scalar; of the scalar, nothing; and of the nothing, nothing - representative of the absolute.

Sort of on the topic of the thread, the scientific definition of absolute is equated with reality, but if the only possible absolute is unreal - in the sense that it cannot be conceived in any relative terms - then relative reality is illusory.

I guess it's a progression to Bohm's hypotheses, and taking Einstein's castle literally: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (1954) - there being nothing left of it - when considering Newton's absolute frame.

It seems that I have given up on his castle, whereas you have worked to build a new foundation for it. So in that light, more power to you, RP.

[MJA]

Sort of on the topic of the thread, the scientific definition of absolute is equated with reality, but if the only possible absolute is unreal - in the sense that it cannot be conceived in any relative terms - then relative reality is illusory.

I guess it's a progression to Bohm's hypotheses, and taking Einstein's castle literally: "I

Way to go, you nailed the truth!
"Absolute is equated with reality" is Einstein's castle of natural truth. Equate is the unifying factor of everything. The castle is not in mid-air, but rather the absolute of reality, the rock solid foundation of nature's truth.

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

Excerpt quote from Nobody's above post:
"I guess it's a progression to Bohm's hypotheses, and taking Einstein's castle literally: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (1954) - there being nothing left of it - when considering Newton's absolute frame.

It seems that I have given up on his castle, whereas you have worked to build a new foundation for it. So in that light, more power to you, RP."

Dear Nobody:

Newton was not without his problems with an 'invisible force', as well.

I agree with you, with the qualification that the 'Castle' quote is from '54, and Einstein was back to working on his abandoned Unified Field in '55, just before he passed on.

Your contributions to this entire forum - certainly including your perspectives of my renovations and translations of other works - may be inestimable.
(Re: Bohm's theory, on Google)

Thank you - and you too, MJA - for being, Mr. Raven Knight ('Nobody was faster').

Best regards,
- RP

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nobody, you said:

"I think the mind's eye and the I can be put to sleep through meditation, or every night in deep sleep."

A poet said:

Some say that gleams of a remoter world
Visit the soul in sleep, —that death is slumber,
And that its shapes the busy thoughts outnumber
Of those who wake and live— (—Shelley)

[N0B0DY]

To perhaps respond satisfactorily to all three pertinent messages in one, I think there are three perspectives that allow for universal functioning: the absolute (unconsciousness - non existence); the infinite (subconsciousness - eternity); and the finite (consciousness - temporality).

I have deduced that all three must be abstract because the absolute is representative of both the absolute container and medium of all relative interactions. If from the absolute perspective point A and point B are the same, action at a distance is feasible because there is essentially no distance. The space is not simply undivided, but not there at all - imo equated to absolute speed - and therefore action taking place at A is simultaneously taking place at B; if the distance is divided into an infinite number of incremental points in time, then even at an infinite velocity it would take an eternity to reach point B - re: Zeno's interpretation of motionlessness; if the distance is divided into finite increments, then point A will be reached in a finite amount of time.

I think the ancient and modern interpretations of maya and brahma, absolute and relative, are interpreted in such a way as to not differentiate between the infinite and the absolute - the death of consciousness and the death of subconsciousness that eternally clings to "imaginary equatorial lines" - and the difference may lie in a mathematical finagling of sorts wired into the brain (DNA), that perhaps Prof. Pat, or someone familiar with math, can shed some light upon: whether or not .999... is equal to 1.

Imo, if they are equal, then there can be a literal universe. If not, it is an impossibility, and life is but a dream.

http://polymathematics.typepad.com/p...sorry_it_.html

[austintorn@aol.com]

—I look on high;
Has some unknown omnipotence unfurled
The veil of life and death? or do I lie
In dream, and does the mightier world of sleep
Spread far around and inaccessibly its circles? (—Shelley)

[N0B0DY]

Shelley's the name, and turya's the game. Amen to that, so beat it. I mean, so be it!

Lovely poem, Austin.

Here's another, more popular I'm told, article on the million dollhair challenge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999