T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

That's the gist exactly, Austin, but a bit of explaining is due to round the edges so to speak.

The planets, plants, animals, raw materials, atoms, etc., are phantasmal because the subconsciousness is universally shared. The whole of evolutionary procession is based on time, and it is time that is proposed as being the sole governor of the grand illusion. The precessional and processional markers are imaginary, like memories and predictions, and are related to the imaginary dividing line of the poles I often refer to. The mechanism is the splitting of the absolute state, the unconsciousness, into the two abstract perspectives referenced in my other postings. They serve as the basis for infinity or relativity because there are an infinite number of fractions between them.

You're right about the subconscious not being talented enough. It is one-sided with regards to "this side" of the universe, the other being the parallel antiverse. The correlation being the positive and negative infinity/subconsciousness on both sides of the absolute/unconsciousness. So to be talented enough, there has to be a meeting of the minds so to speak, and the one side has to pass through the absolute zero point which I refer to as the gateway to the way...tao or whatever name you prefer according to your particular faith or fancy.

You've proven to me from enough indirect analyzes that you get the correlations. I have tried to make things real by considering various mechanics that could be applied, but none are as yet applicable in order for there to be a literal break in the symmetrical zero state. Though there is no difference in feeling whether or not one feels due to literal stimuli, or due to an illusory change in quantum states that are interpreted as real. Aside from that, Lloyd's contraction, RascalPuff's expansion, and Geoff Haselhurst's finite wave front can apply as logical mechanics.

For those who require mathematical interpretations of the mechanics, all that is required for the absolute unconscious potential state to be split is "nothing," and this where Fredricks binary math can be applied to subconscious infinity. The only factor missing, imo, is the absolute 0/0 which is naturally the only choice non existence has - it is a non-existent abstract divided by non-existent abstracts to render our geometrical x-y axes of which the potential state can realize the probability states of infinity along those imaginary axes.

Said more than enough I think, but just one more thing about your image...you can't have your cake and Edith too.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You see Nobody, you choose the word invoke, and therein lies the metaphysical foundational thinking mistake. I do not have to invoke anything, in my analyses. The solid fundamental reality is directly in front of my eyes, and no amount of metaphysical abstract invoking will remove my absolutely real steel hammer. Though it may be made of lesser particles, and their resulting waves and energies, all the way to the infinitesimal, it's still of the infinitesimal absolute fundamental substance___eternally, all the way to absolute infinity___Even if that be other than the unbounded finiteness, which I see no real difference.

It just comes down to mental choice, and acceptance of the facts or not. You do not accept the factual laws of physics, and I do___It's that simple. You faithfully choose metaphysical abstract foundations of thought, and I know and choose physical scientific foundations of thought. People have been doing this since day one. You just haven't looked deep enough at/into the infinitesimal and infinite a-priori physical substances and motions. When you do, you'll discover the errors of your ways.

The abstract metaphysical can never produce the physical scientific universe, because, it's overly obvious to me, and many sound scientists/physicists that the physical scientific universe, of the infinite and infinitesimal whole and parts, produces the evoluted physical structures, and all abstract metaphysical aspects of, at the later dates of evolution. It's a simple mechanical universe___It's not as complex as most are making it. Get waves, fields and crap like that out of your head, and start looking at it as purely physical, governed by varrying degrees of thermal motion, and it all becomes very quickly clear. The solid state motion model of FS is the easiest to understand, when the meta-additions are purged. Start with infinite eternal infinitesimal photonic parts and thermal motions of their less dense state/less motion, as all thermally colder states, by 19th century proven science, are slower motions, not faster, as you continue to suggest. Take away the motion, and you get cold, just as Botlzmann proved over a century ago, and the law that states this fact is: "The entire kinetic energy of any closed system, is equal to its entire thermal/motion content." The entire universe can be scientifically seen, by the laws of physics, as a closed system, since it's the entire system. So, when atomic decay removes heat/motion from any system, it does not increase velocity, as you have mistakenly stated, most every post. The scientific facts are counter to your meta-science. Every scientist knows, there is no science, unless the laws of thermodynamics are respected___Boltzmann and Gibbs are still scientifically correct___Sorry...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

No problem, Lloyd, I understand what you mean, but you've neglected that I have conceded to your logic. What you are not considering is that the absolute is beyond the infinite extension of those logical laws.

Although, even at the undefinable infinite and infinitesimal, you are invoking a priori substances and properties that run contrary to scientific methods that are based on the knowledge of experimental/observable evidence. Aether, absolute FS, infinitesimal real solids, and even virtual containers are beyond the planck event horizon - you can't get much more metaphysical than that, only you are referring to the unsupported as an a priori reality whereas I am basing reality only on what is observable. So, honestly, who is being the more scientific, if your empiricism is based on observation?

Further, I'm not basing consciousness as the means of creation, only that mind and body are different realizations of the eternal virtual reality manifested through cumulative effects. I guess it is fair to say with respect to this conversation that virtual energy isn't enough to produce a change, eventhough some suggest the extreme opposite, but keeping to classical newtonian physics as you suggest, there is no energy at all in the photons. With mass being a factor in both e=mc2 and f=ma, noumenal photons play a more tubular role is transmitting the effects of massive interactions. So I concede that heat and energy are reduced relative to velocity, but that the "photons" don't need speed or energy because there is no dt involved...no heat production... constant thermal equilibrium.

It is ironically the relative velocity changes, that you suggest I steer clear of, that are required to produce phenomenal effects. Without which neither mass nor detectable light is possible, but we can understand that the conservation lies in the absolute frame, whereby the mass of energy of massless particles rests in the frame and the energy of massive particles rests in the frame respectively. Then what is illusory is the "matter in motion" to produce your proposed time, which I understand as ass-backwards, because the motion of matter through space is a result of conversion itself, whereby closed systems are recreated according to m=e/c2 by stretching out distances - less speed, more distance; whereas no distance equals absolute speed.

Again, absolute speed equals no speed because speed isn't required to cover a distance that isn't there, Lloyd. "It" or whatever we wish to call it, is already everywhere in no time at all.

You're right though, maybe invoke is the wrong word to use. Perhaps conceptualize would be more appropriate.

[N0B0DY]

Found something relevant to our convo that you might be interested in, Lloyd. Yet to further the implications with regards to the general topic, I propose the causality issue is based on the splitting of the frame into many parts. To say that the two opposing perspectives of opossing observers of motion to and from each other resepctively, absolutely cancel the motion - which is what the absolute frame stands for...represents, not that there is no perceived motion whilst things are moving in front of our eyes.

"If sequential virtual excitations (interactions of virtual energy with an observable mass) add coherently and reach the quantum level, then suddenly that is an observable change to the observable mass. So to turn virtual state vacuum energy into observable “real world” energy, we need a coherent integration process that integrates (sums) sequential virtual changes.

"The process which converts something virtual to something observable is – astoundingly! – the broken symmetry predicted in the 1950s by Lee and Yang, and experimentally proven by Wu and her colleagues in Feb. 1957. This was such a great revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year, in Dec. 1957.

"In quantum field theory (QFT), all observable forces (in observable matter, that is!) are caused by virtual particle interaction and exchange with that observable matter. In short, QFT simply assumes a coherent integration process to integrate virtual changes into observable changes – and virtual forces into observable forces.

"This brings us to a problem that has been swept out of the textbooks. The problem is that of the “source charge” in EM. A single electron, e.g., sits there and continually pours out real quanta of EM energy – real observable photons – at a steady and continual rate. Yet no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that “isolated” charge.

"This continuous and steady outpouring of real quanta – real, usable EM energy in the form of observable photons – by any fixed and isolated observable charge, generates the associated “static” EM fields for that observable “source” charge. So a “static EM field” is actually not static at all in the usual sense. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:

“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/070207.htm

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nobody,

Your Theory of Nothing seems to explain why perplexed quantum atomic scientists find that there is no objective reality at the sub-atomic level. I was always amazed by that finding.

Stay safe on the tropical mountaintop retreat of the secret TOE Reseach Center—everyone is really after you now! (The concluding chapter of the story should be out soon.)

Good one about Edith.

[N0B0DY]

I like to think the laws extend like fractal geometry, and that the microworld is exactly like the macroworld. This is sort of the reason I was initially attracted to RascalPuff's theory.

If the evidence for fractal shapes is accurate, then it seems to imply that the circumstances/laws required to create a fractal shape would be required to extend the shape infinitely.

Similarly, this can be applied to imperfect replications of DNA causing mutation and evolution, etc., which has its own implications imo of explaining life after death. Some fractals are approximated, and we can envision then many lives approximately like this one. Unless we are to believe that from eternity past to eternity future, this life is the only one lived.

This thread attempts to cut philosophies, religions and sciences down the absolute center, where absolutely nothing is left. Then we can ask what could possibly happen if everything wasn't here?

If that absolute point can represent both nothing having begun and everything having been done, there would be I propose a whole lot of evolution "in between" - perhaps even an eternity.

So still hang here in the trees you say, Austin? I was thinking of teaming up with the new Bond and heading down under in my subluminal submarine, but seeing as though you're the head operative I'll follow your advice.

Looking forward to the final chapter...

[MJA]

Einstein said: "The only real valuable thing is intuition. The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery."

INTUITION: Direct perception of truth, independent of any reasoning.

To find truth, or TOE., is only to eliminate what we think we know and see the world anew, for the very first time.

Theories and faiths are only the fog obscuring reality.

Intuition is the essence of unclouded clearity, and the road to truth!
Don't you see?

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'll try discussing points in both posts Nobody. Let's first, to make this simpler, take your Zeno example and turn it around. Let's start without the invokation of distance, and instead start with my real hammer, then divide it an infinite number of times, to its infinitesimal smallest imaginable a-priori logic parts. If you use this reverse example, you quickly see why matter is ubiquitous, ever-lasting, eternal, or whatever you wish to call it. Your own seeming Zeno paradox, proves the existance of FS, when taken to its absolute a-priori logic and math results___matter can never be destroyed. The point being, it been the scientific community, that's confused abstract results of quantum and relative experiments, for actual comparrisons of a-priori logic, maths connected to real objects, and posteriori experiments. The way I do the same logics and maths, is to realize the importance of a-priori logics, and when to apply them, after pulling one's mind far enough out of the complex delvings of quantum and relative wells, and re-look at the big picture, anew, with the largest perspective possible, of a-priori logic___the hammer divided to the infinite infinitesimal is still the sub-atomic parts of the initial real hammer, No matter how much Zeno's problem is presented. When one starts with real substance, you will always end with real substance. The problem arises through definitions___What is energy?___and to clarify, with my Zeno example, matter is always a less dense matter. This is the only way I a-priorily see to resolve the many physical confustions of linguistics. Even David has stated all is matter in a void, then continues to use wave dynamics, which if considered as less dense matter dynamics, would easily solve the linguistics/definitions problems.

So, as long as everyone continues to define waves and energy, as other than matter, we have an unresolvable problem, when all defined as different density matter, explains everything in both the last posts of yours. The Zeno division proves mathematically, that the end result of true division of my hammer[real matter] must at some point of infinitesimality, reach FS___No matter how you or others define it. So, IMO, the a-priori logic shows the path to truth, if properly used, the FS becomes visible, at least in cognitive analyses of said logic.

[quote=N0B0DY;34675]No problem, Lloyd, I understand what you mean, but you've neglected that I have conceded to your logic. What you are not considering is that the absolute is beyond the infinite extension of those logical laws.[Not when divided by Zeno's math, as above.]

Although, even at the undefinable infinite and infinitesimal, you are invoking a priori substances and properties that run contrary to scientific methods that are based on the knowledge of experimental/observable evidence.[Not at all, if you just stay true to mathematical logic___the end result is FS.] Aether, absolute FS, infinitesimal real solids, and even virtual containers are beyond the planck event horizon[True enough, but not beyond the a-priori math.] - you can't get much more metaphysical than that, only you are referring to the unsupported as an a priori reality whereas I am basing reality only on what is observable.[Is not such infinitesimal math a-priorily observable, even if the FS must remain the known-unseeable?] So, honestly, who is being the more scientific, if your empiricism is based on observation?[I have never said my empiricism is entirely based on observation of matter, but is also based on visibly correct a-priori logic and math. From the earliest posts, I clearly stated my ideas were based on decay math, and my signature says as much___No?]

Further, I'm not basing consciousness as the means of creation, only that mind and body are different realizations of the eternal virtual reality manifested through cumulative effects.[And I'd interject, real reality.] I guess it is fair to say with respect to this conversation that virtual energy isn't enough to produce a change, eventhough some suggest the extreme opposite, but keeping to classical newtonian physics as you suggest, there is no energy at all in the photons.[Unless they have velocity, such as lasers cutting diamonds.] With mass being a factor in both e=mc2 and f=ma, noumenal photons play a more tubular role is transmitting the effects of massive interactions.[Not when they are thermally accelerated, either in base entropy states, or high entropy states, such as star hydrodynamics.] So I concede that heat and energy are reduced relative to velocity, but that the "photons" don't need speed or energy because there is no dt involved...no heat production... constant thermal equilibrium.[And I can not agree with this. Photons may make up all other particles/waves, therefore, they must be accelerated photon states of undetectable mass___undetectable masses, due to the fact it's photons, being measured in the aether's photonic sea, like measuring water in water. Of course we fail to measure water in water, and as your second post shows, much of photonic substance is still unmeasurable, even though we know a-priorily, it's present.]

It is ironically the relative velocity changes, that you suggest I steer clear of, that are required to produce phenomenal effects. Without which neither mass nor detectable light is possible, but we can understand that the conservation lies in the absolute frame, whereby the mass of energy of massless particles rests in the frame and the energy of massive particles rests in the frame respectively. Then what is illusory is the "matter in motion"[Not if you start with the real fundamental hammer.] to produce your proposed time, which I understand as ass-backwards,[Of course, because we're using opposing models.] because the motion of matter through space is a result of conversion itself,[Yes, but what level of entropy, to what other level of entropy?] whereby closed systems are recreated according to m=e/c2 by stretching out distances - less speed, more distance; whereas no distance equals absolute speed.[But, there's no such thing as no distance___it's metaphysically imaginary, except as a still point inside absolute motion, which can never exist. The motion exists, but the still point does not.]

Again, absolute speed equals no speed because speed isn't required to cover a distance that isn't there, Lloyd.[That's just more metaphysical gymnastics.] "It" or whatever we wish to call it, is already everywhere in no time at all.[It, iff FS, is already everywhere, no time needed, but its motion is not. Motion changes, in the great universal cycles, from absolute zero low entropy, to absolute hot high entropy___over and over.]

Cont. next post;

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Cont. from last post:

You're right though, maybe invoke is the wrong word to use. Perhaps conceptualize would be more appropriate.[True enough.][/quote]

Found something relevant to our convo that you might be interested in, Lloyd. Yet to further the implications with regards to the general topic, I propose the causality issue is based on the splitting of the frame into many parts.[This would just be too abstract, as photons move, while many don't think they do. I see them move through diamonds, and I quite suspect they move all throughout space.] To say that the two opposing perspectives of opossing observers of motion to and from each other resepctively, absolutely cancel the motion - which is what the absolute frame stands for...represents, not that there is no perceived motion whilst things are moving in front of our eyes.[You seem to keep ignoring the fact, that FS must have the property of moving through and within and without itself, as to its parts. Different densities pass through different densities of matter___they must or you would have no workable set of physical laws___Think about it...]

"If sequential virtual excitations (interactions of virtual energy with an observable mass) add coherently and reach the quantum level, then suddenly that is an observable change to the observable mass. So to turn virtual state vacuum energy into observable “real world” energy, we need a coherent integration process that integrates (sums) sequential virtual changes.[This is where you and many scientists/physicists make their greatest mistakes, they start with too great an abstract, and proceed falsely. To avoid abstracts, start with real substance, of any observable type, and infinitely divide it to its infinitesimal conclusion of a-priori logical FS. Everybody's been far too long, starting at the wrong end of the problem. It's quite simple, when starting from the absolutely known___here and now...]

"The process which converts something virtual to something observable is – astoundingly! – the broken symmetry predicted in the 1950s by Lee and Yang, and experimentally proven by Wu and her colleagues in Feb. 1957. This was such a great revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang the same year, in Dec. 1957.[Though much of Lee and Yang's work was worth the Nobel Prize, the part you refer to was not. Virtual, of all types is abstraction, and only good for constructing initial concepts, but real physical science___No, it's far too metaphysical.]

"In quantum field theory (QFT), all observable forces (in observable matter, that is!) are caused by virtual particle[Again, this is just still pure speculation. Not founded on observable matter.] interaction and exchange with that observable matter. In short, QFT simply assumes a coherent integration process to integrate virtual changes into observable changes – and virtual forces into observable forces.[I agree, they are wrong, in this senseless assumption.]

"This brings us to a problem that has been swept out of the textbooks. The problem is that of the “source charge” in EM. A single electron, e.g., sits there and continually pours out real quanta of EM energy – real observable photons – at a steady and continual rate.[Agreed.] Yet no instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that “isolated” charge.[No, not true, the instrument of the Tokamak has x-ray detected these hot photon tails, exititing electrons, but no-one has interpreted the existing scientific results, in true physical terms, except what I've written about electrons being mini-ram-jets, takeing on photonic mass, and exhausting it. This is what I've always meant by different densities of matter, falsely being interpreted as energy packets, when in fact, they are actually photons, gaining mass, reaching critical mass, just as an H-bomb, attaining absolute entropy, and exhausting photons through the tail, and gravitons through the sides, as do quasars, in space, or black holes, at the center of galaxies.]

"This continuous and steady outpouring of real quanta – real, usable EM energy[Or less dense matter, as I interpret it.] in the form of observable photons – by any fixed and isolated observable charge, generates the associated “static” EM fields for that observable “source” charge. So a “static EM field” is actually not static at all in the usual sense. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually being made of finer parts in continuous motion:[Exactly as I've been saying, all along. See all energy/waves as less dense real matter, and all problems are solved.]

“To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].

You see Nobody, this final paragraph of yours is in agreement with what I've stated about re-understanding energy/waves as real matter, of lesser densities than much of the observable matter, we do empirically know exists, then we may reach meaningful knowledge of the real observable phenomena, on all levels. So, we may be approaching each other's ideas, after all...
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Yes we are reaching each other's ideas. You're not realizing that I have agreed with you many times, for some reason, and most of what you have written I agree with.

Yes, I have thought about it, fairly deeply, which is why I focused on Zeno because I don't think anyone has ever gone deeper into motion. Yet, like you said, in the end it comes down to the FS (Fundamental Substance) that is allegedly moving a priori. And for us to fairly discover what the FS is and what it is doing, you will have to grant me the same theoretical and philosophical freedom you are allowing yourself. The "known unseeable" is just as metaphysical as what I've proposed.

You have mentioned refinement as well, and this is the most pertinent imo because it can lead us to the only point where there is no refinement. The refinement is allegedly "of something" - the FS - but like Aristotle's substance made of motion itself, we have to know what the FS is made of for it to be definable and refinable. You analogized an ocean whereby the drops of water within water could represent photons, and the acceleration of photons increase their masses, but we would have to remember and account for the fact that the FS is absolutely dense - unlike water - and therefore any acceleration of massless photons isn't "really" changing the state of the FS. (Perhaps you can clarify, if I'm mistaken, whether or not the FS is spatial, aetheric, or if the aether and space are of the same refinement or density.)

You have concluded that the motion of the FS is real and that the still point is not real, and that there is a big hammer hitting the little nail on the head because with regards to the above considerations every point of motion of the FS must pass through other points of the FS. The result is that the FS is always absolutely still and the motion is an illusory extraction from the FS - semi-accurately like separating the drop of water while it is in water. We can imagine an infinite number of drops of water within water of any shape and size, but it doesn't change the water and maths are one means of separating what is essentially inseparable.

However, quanta can be abstracted over an infinite number of incremental points according to arbitrary masses, charges, velocities, etc. without causing unnecessary problems.