T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Nobody]

"Some good comments Nobody but let me offer a defense. I don't agree that there is no outside to 1/0."

In message 34 you disagreed with me, Lode, and in your last post you say: "I never said it wasn't contradictory, but it is consistently so. It's consistent contradiction that allows time to exist at all. How can it be consistent and contradictory you ask? Well, again, the irony of truth. It makes perfect sense."

That above is attempting to merge relativity with the absolute, in order to justify, again, the asymmetry found in nature. It is a fluxing that the absolute doesn't share because it fluxes too damn fast at that point - the moment a particle is there, it isn't. To get our heads around it we're left with creating a very wide range of paradoxes that I'm too tired to try to solve.

I'll leave it in your hands for a bit. Though it's a pleasure debating with you guys.

[lodestar]

Dear nobody, you broke up my quote and took it out of context. here is the full quote

"I don't agree that there is no outside to 1/0. I believe 1/0 is it's own outside, for everything contains everything. There does not exist anything outside of that."

So yes, there is an outside to everything in that everything contains everything, but no there is not an outside to everything in that there is not anything that exists outside of everything that contains everything. Again dude, the irony of truth, and it's as simple and complex as that.

interesting debate. Hopefully soon we come to common understanding. We should let Eric have his turn now. It will be interesting to see what he says.

"Some good comments Nobody but let me offer a defense. I don't agree that there is no outside to 1/0."

In message 34 you disagreed with me, Lode

[gautam]

Zero exists only in mathematics.Perhaps the only thing created by man in this universe is Zero. There is a small scale infinity,as in The Mest Theory, put forth by yours sincerely. Zero denotes a cross over step from what we call a positve level to the negative territory. And the absolute zero is an obnoxios or fantastical number, the way you take it, in the universal context. The universe exist s,if really it exists , then between the large scale infinity and the small scale infinity and these two infinities meet at every point in the timespace. Therefore at the so understood beginning or at present or even at the end ,the universe will remain infinite.

[Nobody]

Small-scale infinity, the infinitesimal, originated with the Greeks thousands of years ago. As did its opposite, the indivisible atom.

That's the whole problem in nut's hell, we got people thinking the absolute is some sort of intrinsic physicality not determined by incremental measurements that go on forever, to the tune of the "atom" being identical in size to the infinite universe. There is no difference between the smallest and the largest because both extend to infinitely.

The entire universe, which most view as astronomically large, can exist within a point that is infinitely smaller than what most view as incredibly small, like the head of a pin. What makes them different, observably, are differentiable measurements based on Zeno's time.

So what can possibly be beyond infinity, and what possible representation of that absolute can we use?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lodestar, do you remember when I first complimented you on your graphic of 1/0. Well there was something there that I just couldn't see at the time. At this moment, I commend you. I also commend Nobody and Eric for sticking with you. I have realized you all three have many valid points, and if you haven't noticed already, I posted my conclusive realization in the shout box. I think I can show how all three have very valid points. First Lodestar, like I said this 1/0 has been sticking in my head since you posted it. I, myself, have been looking for a formula beyond Einstein's for over thirty-some years. I have especially been looking since I rationalized infinity, yet nothing came up, until lying in bed this morning thinking again about singularities, when I realized what the significance of your 1/0 actually means...

Your formula is the mathematical formula to the exact facts of what I formalized, even though I haven't completely posted all of it yet. All I finally did was put your formula into a laws of physics context, and for Nobody and Eric, that is within the rules of all classical, quantum and relative physics. If you noticed in the shout box I re-wrote it to exactly what you have been saying all along as; 1/0=E, i.e., translated___One absolute singularity, alias infinity, alias, classical space-time, alias creator, alias the absolute, alias thermalicity, alias black hole___divided by zero Kelvin, alias absolute zero temperature, alias thermalicity motion___equals absolutely everything, alias the quantimizer egg, alias the first singularity after infinity, alias black hole, alias creator of relative motion, alias finite creator of our space-time universe.

As to Nobody, what you have mentioned would seem by the laws of physics to also be true, that is, if the one absolute singularity of infinity has thermal-hydro-dynamic motion inside itself, it must radiate heat away from itself to allow such motion, thus the possibility of what is normally classed as infinity, may in fact, have consequences beyond our normal understanding of such a singularity. This may even bear out the idea that all of our known finite/infinite universe might be within the event horizon of an expanding singularity. The laws of physics do allow such wierdness. This I must investigate further, but just thought I'd mention it. BTW Nobody, just about all of Lodestar's ideas fit the laws of physics, when you look at the entirety of this new model of the entire universe. And also Nobody, just about everything you are saying about the negative side of infinity is correct, too. The way I see it, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., are all similar copies of the infinite singularity, and the finite singularity___they all possess the same almost infinitly small internal dynamics of motions. The infinite singularity produces the curled up finite singularity, and inside it is produced all the curled up infintesimally small singularities that build finite relative space-time___and produce all its larger singularities of stars, planets and moons, etc.. So, all of the classical model, quantum model, and the standard relative model have their validities___within this greater, greater and greatest absolute validity.

Now to a brief explanation of 1/0=E... Infinity is divided from itself[its own uncreated zero temp] by the first wave motions, but since this absolutely must be a low entropy space, as the laws of physics and absolute universal decay require the one way direction of thermal entropy motion, but these first low entropy waves don't have any possibility of quantimizing on their own. Oh sure low entropy motion energy could brew up quite a bunch of storms with its imploding forces, whirlwinds, hurricanes, tornados, etc., there is no way for such low entropy forces of motion to ever reach the compression forces necessary to produce even one quantumized electron, the laws of physics would require the first singularity, of true and absolute quantimizer, of all early finite universe singularities, i.e., electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, etc., and further to create the radiation, gravity, vacuum necessary for the propagation of first motions of. Due to the laws of physics requireing universal radiation to proceed to low entropy infinite space/motion/matter, because of the thermodynamic arrow of time[entropy is one directional - once reached, it decays] this requires absolute infinity to be a low entropy motion/energy/matter, that must curl[thermal buildup through motion and heat radiation] up into high entropy quantimized/relativized finite space-time, then uncurl[thermal build-down through radiation decay] to us and our future inflationary state into infinite low entropy space, once again. It is a scientific reincarnation loop of the cosmic egg of infinity, over and over... This is my scientific opinion, backed up by all the laws, experiments and observations, and knowledge of physics and cosmology...

Lodestar and Nobody, I hope you can both see where your theories, ideas, physics and math knowledges fit this new model of physics. I think if we work together to finish all the details of your and my ideas, we will not only have the physics TOE, but we will be well on the way to the completed theory of everything...

Would you like to work together? I'd be glad to share all the physics proofs I've worked out to prove this conjecture, absolutely in line with Lodestar's excellent formula, the true and exact formula of everything physics has to offer...

thank you sincerely,
Lloyd Gillespie

Dear nobody, you broke up my quote and took it out of context. here is the full quote

"I don't agree that there is no outside to 1/0. I believe 1/0 is it's own outside, for everything contains everything. There does not exist anything outside of that."

So yes, there is an outside to everything in that everything contains everything, but no there is not an outside to everything in that there is not anything that exists outside of everything that contains everything. Again dude, the irony of truth, and it's as simple and complex as that.

interesting debate. Hopefully soon we come to common understanding. We should let Eric have his turn now. It will be interesting to see what he says.

[Nobody]

Again I see your valid points, but they only apply to relative concepts, Lloyd. They can't apply to the absolute for the following analogous reason:

Imagine if you will the energy spectrum in analog form as representing infinity from an observer's perspective; digital conversion as observational data extracted from the spectrum - the detectable spectrum; and the whole of the spectrum with all values combined.

Now we would think, from a physics or observational point of view, that the whole spectrum would be a singular white light because all frequencies combined produce white light and no frequencies produce black.

The question: from the universe/omniverse's point of view, would the color be white or black?

You might want to think of it as the difference between seeing a beam of light spread out between point A and point B, and being the beam of light. Would all possible measurements between be negated absolutely?

[Nobody]

I re-read the thermodynamic hypothesis again from the link you provided a while back btw, Lloyd. It seems the author is claiming that although matter (made from energy) can be destroyed or converted to energy, that energy can't be destroyed. That would be true if there were such a "real" thing as energy, but the way I look at "things" there can only be energy when it is quantized.

That to say that Einstein couldn't find what he was looking for because it doesn't "really" exist, and it can't ever exist because something can never come from nothing. So all quanta are illusory products of all observers' consciousness/imagination that we claim is knowledge. It sort of gives new meaning to Einstein's " Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, you miss the whole point. If the universe is taken as a decaying singularity of all high entropy motion to low entropy motion, which anyone knows from just looking at the radiation of stars, and their finite life-time, then the entire universe of all motion, quantum angular and linear motion is also decaying to its lowest entropy state of one degree of motion, low entropy linear motion. Any sane logical person can easily see this, even if a mystic, which I know you are not. So, if what is left beyond all universal decay is linear thermal motion/matter, where is your quantum state, or better still, quantimizer, if not a later singularity? Many, many trillions of years later. How does infinite space-time quantimize finite space-time? Sorry, but the evidence of the laws of physics demand the known proofs of radiation decay of thermalicity, to be true. Thermalicity just happens to be the only absolute measurement we have of absolute motion and the known universe. I thought you wanted to do physics, instead of just play with it, so please let me know how quantum is born IYO, as it certainly doesn't exist in low entropy infinity.

All anyone need do to logically realize thermalicity is the true absolute, is realize its limits of cold and heat. Everyone on earth, I would guess, would realize they would be dead and decay in either a sun or a rocket ship headed into deep empty space toward 3.7k, when the fuel runs out___bye___bye. These are the two scientific hells at both ends of thermalicity, the universes real absolutes. We all feel, sense, know and can truly measure such true realities. No matter how much you try and make them go away, you can't, they only dissappear with insanity... The cycle of space states always return, after enough time. The last sentence in your post leads me to believe you are a mystic___are you?

regards,

I re-read the thermodynamic hypothesis again from the link you provided a while back btw, Lloyd. It seems the author is claiming that although matter (made from energy) can be destroyed or converted to energy, that energy can't be destroyed. That would be true if there were such a "real" thing as energy, but the way I look at "things" there can only be energy when it is quantized.

That to say that Einstein couldn't find what he was looking for because it doesn't "really" exist, and it can't ever exist because something can never come from nothing. So all quanta are illusory products of all observers' consciousness/imagination that we claim is knowledge. It sort of gives new meaning to Einstein's " Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Your mistaken thinking here is in believing, without any logical proof, that low entropy infinite space was initially quantized. Logic and physics shows it was not. If you do the observations with the trans-infinite logic possible, you will see the classical thermal motions of classical infinity, and not the mystic view of pre-quantimized high entropy infinity___lacking any such quantumizer, vacuumizer, gravitizer, relativizer or expander[inflator]. I further point out, there was no light in low entropy infinite space-time. There are no valid relative views, there are only absolute classical views[direct cognative perception with perceptronic logic] of quantum/relativity[straight classical thermalicity, at high velocities]... The absolute classical laws of physics are sound, except where corrections must be made for high velocities[high entropy thermalicity]...

regards,

Again I see your valid points, but they only apply to relative concepts, Lloyd. They can't apply to the absolute for the following analogous reason:

Imagine if you will the energy spectrum in analog form as representing infinity from an observer's perspective; digital conversion as observational data extracted from the spectrum - the detectable spectrum; and the whole of the spectrum with all values combined.

Now we would think, from a physics or observational point of view, that the whole spectrum would be a singular white light because all frequencies combined produce white light and no frequencies produce black.

The question: from the universe/omniverse's point of view, would the color be white or black?

You might want to think of it as the difference between seeing a beam of light spread out between point A and point B, and being the beam of light. Would all possible measurements between be negated absolutely?

[Eric]

Sheez, go away for a couple of days and there's a lot to catch up on. Good stuff. It gives me great pleasure to find people who are willing to think beyond infinity and the absolute, and do it in a civil and open-minded fashion. Don't let it go to your heads, of course, but even the best of the best aren't doing it.

The entire universe, which most view as astronomically large, can exist within a point that is infinitely smaller than what most view as incredibly small...

Yes, but the point you're refering to, can be misleading. All considerations of finite have to be set aside to get to the "principle of infinity". So I'd just like to say "finite is within infinite" and leave it at that for now.

So what can possibly be beyond infinity, and what possible representation of that absolute can we use?

Think about it as a "hierarchy of principles". One "principle" being greater than another. Finite, then infinite, then what? What is the first thing that infinity can't reach? Let's list the hierarchy from the bottom up. It's helpful to visualize the hierarchy as concentric circles. The smallest the finite, then the infinite, then....

1. FINITE – "Appears" to begin or end at "points". (all "observable" qualities & quantities)

2. INFINITE – Doesn't actually begin or end (no points). (no observable qualities & quantities)

3. EVERYTHING & NO-THING – Not absolute, but "relatively" absolute QUANTITIES. One does not come from the other. No-thing is INSIDE of everything. Not the "source" of the universe, but the boundary infinity never arrives at.

4. CONTAINER & CONTENT – Not absolute, but "relatively" absolute QUALITIES. Quality is greater than quantity. The container is perfect. The content gives to perfectly conform to it.

5. EXISTENCE & ONE – An absolute quality & quantity that are relative to each other.

This is the hierarchy of relatives that exist as "aspects" of the ABSOLUTE.

I'm going to stop here, let it sink in, be discussed, etc. Then I will reverse them, work from the outside in, and further explain the finite and infinite, and the center around which all these circles exist. I will also explain how the Absolute, which is beyond all desription, doe NOT have anything whatsoever outside of it.

Remember though, there all dimesnionless at this point. "Points of principle" have no space between them.