T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[austintorn@aol.com]

[Profpat]

[quote=N0B0DY;34905]I think you, being both an accountant (re: the balance sheet) and one proposing an antimatter universe, Pat, would see that this world would be impossible if it were not asymmetrical.

Hi Nobody,

Why? The antimatter universe was proposed to restore a symmetrical universe. The present proposed big bang is asymmetrical.

Austin you are back. Did you and RP complete your assignment?

Best to all,

Pat

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Much, much closer to my ideas. More later...

Lloyd

Lloyd,

I was thinking about what you had said about the relativistic nature of mass, and it really is not as different from the implications that arise from the SLAC experiments as I had previously considered.

If we both agree there is essentially no need to invoke photons or gravitons, perhaps we can posit an atomic model based on interference in lieu of annihilation and creation. Though, the meeting point would have to remain imo otherwise there would be no differentiating between energy and matter.[There doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, eccept the differences of their densities. Matter is thicker density, and energy is thinner density matter. All FS and photons are infinitely time/distance scalable. This alone, solves all the universe's mechanical problems, but will take some time for physicists/scientists/thinkers to catch on. The clue is in; "Only photons, or the FS, burn/light...!" It's the different mixtures of protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, exchanging photons, that causes the differing rates of light and burn/explosion rates. It's a simple radio-metric friction, sound, motion and heat universe, at its most fundamental level, of FS space before first star.]

I'm thinking instead of having quarks, protons, electrons, photons, gravitons, etc., the spectral lines would be the result of gravity separating the white light.[Gravity must be defined, before it can be used as a fundamental, sorry.] There would be only an inward and outward interaction according to frequency; there would be an a priori intrinsic positive and negative bond built into the fabric of space itself - synonymous to multiple mini bangs due to annihilation of the charges.[You'd have to define annihilation, in terms of matter movements, and densities/thinnesses.] Whereby the outward gamma bursts would represent the positive charge of the proton, which would be more "massive" than the electron (inward waves) due to the greater kinetic energy. The outer "shells" of the atom would have greater energy because the amplitude of the inward waves would be higher - less interference from the high-amplitude outward waves.[Close.]

Molecular bonding would be the result of random amplitude changes whereby certain atoms would be forced together to the point where the inward and outward amplitudes match, and the whole larger closed system would be surrounded by incoming waves with a sum amplitude variably less than the closed system to allow for variable decay rates.[Again close, but all the particles amplitudes, and the hydrodynamic factors of, need be discussed, down to the photons, as I see photon paths as the largest aspect of molecular bonding.]

Is that a fair assessment, or should I stick to chopping trees in the Sahara Forest?

It's a good guess, pif, but sometimes we can get so accustomed to confusion that something as simple as 1-1=0 can seem more confusing than what we're used to.

From something like this: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/0...-of-space-time we can attempt to fill in the gaps without a "god of the gaps" theory, by positing an absolute constant that reduces spatial dimensions to zero - decreasing distance by increasing speed. Time would be the sole governing factor that produces observable reality by slowing down absolute speed of light.

What is proposed as an accelerating universe is relative to light speed, but if you think about it there is nothing preventing infinite speed. Eventhough I disagree with expansion into non-existent places, following the implications could imply an absolute vacuum, unlike the vacuum that determines "c," whereby "everywhere" is reached instantaneously.

Logic ceases here, pif, and I guess becomes a tad confusing, because we have to suggest a type of gravitational force as the cause of matter instead of matter being the cause of gravity. Where gravity slows light speed down to form matter at infinitesimal scales, and light destroys matter continually through variable decay rates depending on how much gravity has dilated time.

The problem is that there is no literal force possible to slow down what can't be slowed down in any way. So I suggest an illusory model based on consciousness.

Nobody, the above is where you continually make the universal mistake of using the false axiom of absolute velocity, just as Dave does, with no sound reasoning or empirical proofs. There is no generator of absolute velocity___Not possible. If so___Where...? The only possible generator of absolute velocity is you and Dave's egos. The fault lies in not realizing absolute motion is not absolute velocity, and thinned density is not no density.

The Great Differences Between Absolute Motion and Absolute Velocity:
Nobody, absolute motion is no more than the entire infinite eternal motion of the universe. Absolute velocity is one's imagination. True, C can and does exist as a time/distance scalable velocity, but reaching absolute velocity, is absolute myth, and generated solely, by the standard model of religious metaphysics. C may be scalable over time, such as faster in the past, but absolutely faster, never. It runs up against the FS density, which may be very fine/thin density, but is still dense enough to slow any mythical or real absolute velocity wave/particle mechanics. So, as you have mentioned to me, stop using the false axioms of standard model physics, and you may start seeing the reality of Hau's experiment, and the truest universal mechanics. Try to use only the clearly defined and proven axioms/laws of physics, and the picture is much clearer. It's all in the the myth of absolute velocity, and the reality of absolute motion. It seems the confusions are always linguistic...

Further, when you view Hau's experiments closely, you realize the extreme compression you keep alluding to is also another impossible axiom, even at the therorized black hole levels, as radiation escapes, and is truly just a much less extreme of near absolute zero compression, where motion is still possible, and light is retrievable, even at this lowest of temps. Just as Dave stated, the confusion lies in the non-axiom of absolute zero energy, and the truer axiom of absolute zero entropy. Motion/energy still exists in absolute zero entropy___It's eternally absolute matter/motion___Not only throughout the visible universe, but also all throughout the eternal infinite void, before first star/black-whatever___Which happens to be the true absolute motion.

Lloyd

[Fluent Piffle]

All you have to call your own, pif, is based on localised and subjective observations that you could never prove is beyond the conceptual. -[wrong] Infinity, too, is a man-made concept based merely on logically extending finite measurements. -[Wrong - It is correctly deduced, no opinion]

The absolute, however, is the only state that needs no concept because it is not based on claiming the existence of something that cannot be proven. -[Wrong, and you have yet to provide evidence of this 'absolute', or even what it might be!] You cannot prove that everything you see is not based on your mind, because without your mind you would have no concept of reality. -[Wrong - Reality needs no 'concept' for it to exist]

You could then say that if you were dead and gone everything would still exist, but only because other individual minds remain to observe what is thought to be real, and because the subconscious mind can't die - like Ouroboros. -[Wrong - Just gibberish, really!] It can only be transcended by completely stilling the mind, which is considered by most to be impossible. -[Wrong - More gibberish. You are starting to sound like a 'tree-hugger', Nobody. Careful with that, pat might be tempted to nail you to one!]

If only the imaginary reference responsible for observable reality were considered, instead of being continually glossed over, you would realize that everything you are shown by the subconscious mind doesn't really exist - [Wrong - Getting really desperate now...] it's the ultimate mind game -[This, I will leave for the experts in the field]- because the absolute center of "everywhere" is nowhere.

Beware those who think they know all about 'ultimate mind games'. - They probably do!

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

I'm referring to the observable universe, as I thought you were, not to the anti-parallel universe which would render it perfectly symmetrical as one, which can be equated with zero when we consider what is required for both sides to be differentiated.

Mankind, though? If you're serious about that, I would hate to witness your interpretation of imbalance. Like the one-sided observable universe, I don't think mankind can be considered balanced. Although there does seem to be an equality of poverty and wealth, and pleasure and pain.

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

With respect to your knowledge of the relative functioning of the universe, based on emprically defined laws, I concede. Yet, like pif asking to show him what doesn't exist, it is impossible to show where there is absolute speed. It is not the sum of relative velocities suggestive of absolute motion, but the non-existent event horizon itself which has no time - it cannot be attributed any concept of time or space.

You had once suggested we think of the universe in spherical terms. So imagine that an event occurs at one end and the information propagates in x amount of light years to the other side. From an observer's point of view there can be any number of instantaneous speeds and relative velocities along the way, but from the absolute perspective of the universe which is said to exist everywhere, the event would occur at both ends simultaneously because the absolute universe "exists" at both ends.

There is no time - which solely governs observable reality - because the absolute frame would follow the event at every point. And I say "would" because the absolute remains static regardless of the relative motion, and therefore renders any and all motion recreated over spatial points through time as a sensory illusion - inclusive of common sense.

[N0B0DY]

Pif,

It is understandable that you would infer I'm wrong, but your position is non sequitur. I have tried for ten years to give adequate evidence, not to prove the existence of non existence, but to lead people to draw their own conclusions by extracting relevant information based on extending logical hypotheses to the absolute level.

You have once again failed to elaborate, through friendly debate, where my absolute divider is an incorrect deduction. And I know now the reason is that you're bright enough to see the simplicity of it - what is the cause for there to be a difference between up and down? - and you just don't want to admit it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Secret of the Universe may be in this picture, but where?

[N0B0DY]

I'm gonna go out on a limb, Austin, and say:

[Fluent Piffle]

You have once again failed to elaborate, through friendly debate, where my absolute divider is an incorrect deduction. And I know now the reason is that you're bright enough to see the simplicity of it - what is the cause for there to be a difference between up and down? - and you just don't want to admit it.

Nobody,

People are the dividers. Your deduction is incorrect because you fail to put yourself into the equation and recognise that it is YOU who is doing the dividing, and then trying to justify your own position. I might suggest that you do this because you approach the subject with a pre-conceived notion of 'God' being some kind of ultimate thing. Existence is a whole thing, and therefore can only be the ultimate thing. You could call existence 'god' if you like, but the implications will be the same, whatever name you wish to use. This leads you to many other wrong conclusions, without a true foundation for your thoughts, hence...people are the dividers...when they do not know reality (hence, again, the need to search for it!).

The great thing is that denying all of this will only spur others on to find the eventual answer, the TRUTH of it, so whether 'god' is anything at all, or not, its truth will be found, regardless of whatever anyone thinks or does to stop it. Knowledge is an inevitability for Humans. We will (are) self-destruct(ing) without it.

pif.