T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Nobody]

Lloyd,

What possible absolute would you say represents both the absolute highest and lowest temperature, and how do you define the entropy of a gravitational field?

Eric,

The finite, infinite, everything, container, content, existence, and one, all create an unsolvable dichotomy paradox between existence and non existence. No-thing is the only possible absolute that doesn't create that paradox because there is nothing for it to be relative to - it doesn't exist! The moment we say everything is absolute is the moment we must say there nothing outside of it, paradoxical; but when we say nothing is absolute and then say there is nothing outside of that because it doesn't exist, it solves the ultimate paradox of first philosophy.

[Eric]

The finite, infinite, everything, container, content, existence, and one, all create an unsolvable dichotomy paradox between existence and non existence. No-thing is the only possible absolute that doesn't create that paradox because there is nothing for it to be relative to - it doesn't exist! The moment we say everything is absolute is the moment we must say there nothing outside of it, paradoxical; but when we say nothing is absolute and then say there is nothing outside of that because it doesn't exist, it solves the ultimate paradox of first philosophy.

I totally agree that the paradox between existence and non-existence is the one that needs an answer. But...

As you'll notice in my last post, no-thing is not absolute and it is not outside of everything, which is also not absolute. Just because we call it a "TOE" doesn't mean "everything" is the greatest of all concepts (absolute).

My first post in this thread pointed out (in my mind anyway), the three "nothings". No-thing has to be inside of everything. The absence of everything pre-supposes the existence of everything.

The greater nothing, "absolutely nothing", is different. "Something absolute and absolutely nothing" is actually the paradox you're refering to (IMHO).

How can somethig absolute come from absolutely nothing? This is the greatest question of all (IMHO). Is there an "absolute nothing (non-existence) outside of something absolute (existence)? If not, then why?

This is the question, I personally, would like to discuss.

[lodestar]

whoa wait a minute here, let's not make it any more complicated than it has to be.

Everything is everything. There is nothing greater than that and nothing less than that. That is the definition of everything. Furthermore nothing does not exist and everything is ALL that exists. 1/0 is the mathematical representation of this. So 1/0 is the only number that really exists when you consider it. 1/0=E

There is no paradox between nothing and everything, since nothing does not exist and everything is all that exists. It is a consistent contradiction that always holds true you see. It is entirely complex but entirely simple, so let's not make it any more complex than that.

Everything derives from 1/0, that is the source for everything. nothing is the source for nothing. Nothing does not exist so it has absolutely no bearing or relavance to everything.

lodestar

[lodestar]

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.

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

Hi Lloyd,

Thanks for the compliments. I would be interested in pursuing the theory of 1/0 with your help indeed. I have invited others to help us as well such as Volantis, Eric, and others. Shall we continue in this thread?

[Eric]

Everything is everything. There is nothing greater than that and nothing less than that. That is the definition of everything. Furthermore nothing does not exist and everything is ALL that exists. 1/0 is the mathematical representation of this. So 1/0 is the only number that really exists.

What logic says nothing does not exist, yet have the mathematical representation include a 0?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What logic says nothing does not exist, yet have the mathematical representation include a 0?

Eric, begging your pardon, absolute nothing can never exist, as that would make it an absolute something, which is simply logically impossible. The seeming paradox, that doesn't exist, except in perception of those who think it does, is actually an incomplete view of all scientific facts and logics. When all facts and logics are considered, all paradoxes vanish, except the people who can always take the choice to create complex false paradoxes, to encapsulate other's minds.

regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Deeper answer later, tornado outside...

Sorry for the abruptness above, but had to shut down for storms. Eric you may be one who judges the universe from the time constraints of relative space-time, I don't know for sure. If however you do, you will see the observer positions from an entirely different position than I do, due to the fact I see the observer position from a purely classical mechanics position of all motion being identical to thermal motion, or thermalicity, i.e., from cold low entropy infinity, to hot high entropy finiteness, and decay back to cold low entropy infinity. This sets up an entirely different logic of the universe than you may be viewing it from, and yet yours and mine are both compatible with the real motions of all classical, quantum and relative motions. It's a matter of perspective, how the different dynamics play out, thus the differences and often times confusions. The trouble with all physics, classical, quantum and relative is never having established absolute foundations to work from. Many physicists have mentioned this, i.e., there is no low entropy universal stage in any of classical, quantum or relative mechanics, as per the present state of physics. Herein lies the problem. This is what we can address, over the coming days and weeks. You have already started some good probing of such ideas. We need to continue... I will later post about a rationalized number set for Lodestar's 1/0=E, then it will make much more sense, as I will use approximate, and exaggerated numbers on all sides of this equation to show a possible, and I think real dynamics of the twin quantum space-time fields of cold and hot, low entropy and high entropy, infinity and finiteness, and how these two fields of one infinite inter-mingle and exist. This will much better explain the meanings and confusions, that exist in most minds. We will also be able to discover why thermalicity is our only and truest absolute measurement of all universal motions. We can all easily understand cold and hot, hot and cold in all its real and exaggerated dynamics and maths. So for now, hang in there...

regards,
Lloyd

[lodestar]

What logic says nothing does not exist, yet have the mathematical representation include a 0?

the logic that defines 0 as undefined

[Lloyd Gillespie]

How can somethig absolute come from absolutely nothing? This is the greatest question of all (IMHO). Is there an "absolute nothing (non-existence) outside of something absolute (existence)? If not, then why?

This is the question, I personally, would like to discuss.

Eric, to the first question above, you are correct it can not. Nothing absolutely doesn't exist, yet Nobody's question of what is beyond infinity is a valid question. It takes the two quantum space-time fields' understanding to know the answer to this. That will be coming also... To the second question, it would be how you premised the answer, withing the laws of physics, to account for all finite universal decay into the infinite space-time quantum linear rotation as verses finite space-time's quantum angular, linear motion and spin. Try to first get your head around a twin quantum space-time reality, of low entropy infinity and high entropy finiteness___the quasi-boundary line is at the finite decay's light cone edge. I say quasi because, the infinite cold is present in the finite field of heat___we certainly witness it as 3.7k., but the finite heat is not present after all finite universal decay of everything, including motion into its lowest entropy state, of the unwrapped quantum singularities. Lodestar's formula can be easily rationalized with real classical math numbers to show all these representations...

More later, answering others...

Lloyd

[Eric]

Lode,

I think "undefined" is insufficient for a TOE.

0 can easily be defined, but not outside of the 1. By stating 1/0 you have the 0 & 1 outside of each other. This is a terribly subtle point I'm trying to make, but it's vitally important. Absolutely nothing is even less than 0.

If even one word is spoken about what is outside the 1, it's a step in the wrong direction.

There is not only no outside OF the 1, but also no outside TO the 1.

The 0 is inside the 1, it is located at its center, and it is more than absolutely nothing.

Lloyd,

Well yes, his question is valid, that's why I detailed what is outside of infinity.

If any mention of space, time, mass, field, etc. is included, it too is a step in the wrong direction. The are all finite. Any configuration of finite will always break down approaching infinity. What's outside of infinity has nothing to do with them. It's an entirely higher prinicple of reality.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

[quote=Nobody;21649]Lloyd,

What possible absolute would you say represents both the absolute highest and lowest temperature, and how do you define the entropy of a gravitational field? [As to the first question, I accept the known absolutes of pre-measured physics, absolute zero, and the absolutely highest temperatures recorded inside suns{stars, singularities} I full well realize this is not the absolutely highest entropy temperature that ever existed___that would be the temperature at the center of the largest singularity ever___the hot big bang and its thermal quantum mechanics at the center___extremely high velocity thermalicity motion___that number will have to remain silent until physicists figure the largest h-bomb explosion possible, of all universal aggregate motion and matter___and at that point in the highest evolution of thermal motion, as it has certainly decayed much since that point, as we all witness daily radiation from all the stars, etc., off into finiteness and infinity___beyond all light cone recovery by finite gravity] [As to the second question, the entropy of a gravitational field would be proportional to the rate of motion and heat/matter signature at the center and outer vacinities of all singularities, infinity, big-bang, electron, etc.___this is pure personal conjecture, until proven___I think we can go a long ways in this direction, if you're willing to hang in there.]

Eric,

The finite, infinite, everything, container, content, existence, and one, all create an unsolvable dichotomy paradox between existence and non existence.[Thermalicity, in and of infinity, easily explains this seemed paradox___thermo-hydro-dynamic quantum wave motion is an uncreated self-creator of all universal perpetual motion___just by it own self-dynamics of cold must implode/contract/compress] No-thing is the only possible absolute that doesn't create that paradox because there is nothing for it to be relative to - it doesn't exist![What is beyond the finite expansion into infinity, would be a much better way to approach our area of infinity, if you want to theorize beyond, the 10^96 years of universal decay from high entropy quantum/relative angular/linear motion to low entropy quantum linear wave motion of thermalicity] The moment we say everything is absolute is the moment we must say there nothing outside of it, paradoxical;[Nobody, the absolute can be and is infinity, the eternal, but there is nothing in physics that says our area of infinity can not be extended into other areas. The only problem is it is never knowable, as the light cones of each universe, should they exist, could never be visible, due to the centers of each possible universal area would most likely be 10^96 years distance, so it is usless theorizing, as it has absolutely no effect on our area of the absolute infinity, and is not paradoxical___at all.] but when we say nothing is absolute and then say there is nothing outside of that because it doesn't exist, it solves the ultimate paradox of first philosophy. [That's like saying nothing comes from nothing___very true. Nothing is absolute is what causes all the world's mass confussions of relativity___relativity is an absolute motion of thermalicity. Even Einstein knew this, as is evident in his quote in my post's signature. It doesn't solve the ultimate paradox, because there is no ultimate paradox, except those thinking and stating them so___they are all hoaxes of linguistic tricks. Ayne Rand clearly showed this years ago in her epistemology. Oh, relative exists as our way of understanding high thermal motions, true, but we live in the real absolute world. Everybody's deffinition of absolute is different. Most think when the word absolute is used it means "the absolute", not so][/quote]

Nobody, I'm not trying to rain on you, I'm just trying to establish some absolute meaning conversation. Hope you don't mind. It's your thread, I think, but I want your critical input. It has real value.

thank you,
Lloyd