[Eric]

No offense taked Lloyd. I shut you out early on, because the tone behind disagreeing has to be within limits. It doesn't have to be entirely nice either. I just didn't want to hear about everybody's head and your hammer.

The differences we are having are based on the classical and the enitrely non-classical.

I have no desire to prove even the greatest of minds wrong or limited, but they are. It's not about me, them, or you. It's about a TOE.

All the definitions your'e working with and are trying to further, are derived from 25 centuries of assumption and approximation, and have not yet arrived at anything greater.

Every single one is based on and limited by, looking at the universe from within itself. Even if one makes a statement that seems to include something outside of the universe, the observer is still included. There is a way for the observer to not be included, however.

Yes, I am introducing a "higher order logic".

... if the one be the infinite absolute singularity of one, then this statement is true...

Infinity does not arrive.[I never said it did. I said infinity is the absolute eternal.]

In the first statement, I believe you state that it arrives. In the second statement, I belive you state that it doesn't arrive.

In the second statement, there is truth. Infinity is not just about eternal, however. It's about all that seems to be finite.

It states that "all things finite are relative, to infinity being absolute".

So anything that seems to have a finite beginning or end, is not separate from any other thing that seems to have a finite beginning or end.

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954)

[Eric, haven't you noticed all the stars/singularities radiating their own death march toward infinity?]

Yes. That's why I say that infinity absolutely rules finite. Not one finite can be created or destroyed. It's not a death march. It's a life march headed towards change. Birth and death are opposites. Life is eternal.

The absolute itself, is beyond all of this, and it's entirely logical.

Eric

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Nobody

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?

Nobody;
Though your question was directed toward Lloyd:
MOTION is the answer to the first part of your question.
DECREASING is the answer to the second part.

[lodestar]

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

I look forward to your presentation Lloyd. I agree that the universe can basically be looked at as a state of flux between extreme hot and cold. For example, the universe started as extreme hot. The number circle is actually a guage of time and temperature. As the universe's expansion progresses time moves forward and the temperature of the universe approahces absolute zero. So according to the number circle, I predict that the temperature of the universe will become "less" than absolute zero whenever time/space goes through an inevitable "exversal" at the end of time when the universe will be expanding so fast that even two points seperated by a planck distance will be expanding away from eachother at greater than the speed of light. This state of absolute expansion will be so great (i.e. 1/0) that it will cause space time to tear and become reversed. This is what it means when the number circle goes from positive to negative at 1/0. So yes, it is all related to temperature, or themalicity as you say, which goes through processes of inversal and exversal (at the points 0 and 1/0 respectively)

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Eric

Lode,

I think "undefined" is insufficient for a TOE.

I agree, and that is why 1/0 is defined and 0 is undefined. In other words, in order that everything be defined, nothing must not be.

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

To Eric,

In your post about this post, I think you misinterpreted Lode's logic. I think he meant the imcompleteness of present academic logic that has not defined 0, or incorrectly defined it. He'll have to clarify his point, if different...

regards,

To all,

No, the error in math is that we have said 1/0 is undefined. The number that is really undefined when you think about it is 0. If it wasn't true that nothing was undefined then the theory of everything would be impossible. In other words, if nothing was defined then everything could not be. Apparently mathematicians thought that was the case because they made 1/0 undefined. That was their own pessismism that caused them to do that and it is still being carried out today We have yet to realize that everything is the greatest absolute value, literally defined mathematically as 1/0. It is only pessimism that causes us to think that nothing is defined.

Hopefully people will realize in this thread that everything is defined, not nothing.

sincerely, lodestar

[Eric]

Originally Posted by lodestar

I agree, and that is why 1/0 is defined and 0 is undefined. In other words, in order that everything be defined, nothing must not be.

Yes, we must define absolutely nothing as not being. But let me ask you. Does absolutely nothing not existing, have anything to do with something absolute existing?

[lodestar]

Originally Posted by Eric

Yes, we must define absolutely nothing as not being. But let me ask you. Does absolutely nothing not existing, have anything to do with something absolute existing?

Sincerely, I don't understand the meaning of your question.

-lodestar

[Eric]

Understood. Let me rephrase. Does something absolute exist, because absolutely nothing does not?

[Nobody]

True, but what kind of 0? Thermal or integer, is there any absolute difference?

The absolute can't exist, so the greatest possible (temperature or integer or difference) must be equal to zero. The zero merely represents the fact that absolutes don't exist, and hence confirms Einstein's predictions of relativity opposing everything that is classically newtonian in its limiting macroscopic views - mass, space, time, etc..

In other words, if you will, any object/energy quantum/particle is not absolute. It is relatively composed of an infinite number of infinitesimal points that are extended via time increments - of course, monopolar linear time that creates space.

Are you absolutely here or not? Try biting your hand until it tells you, you absolutely exist.

Most folks ask me this, taking my words out of context, but like you said it depends on perspective. Subjectively, and obviously relatively, I am "here," but objectively, from a universal perspective, I am not "here" because there is no such thing as "here" or "there" to a universe that is nowhere in particular.

The Western mind separates mind and body, but when the two are viewed as identical it is the subconscious mind that subatomically structures what is called objective reality and the conscious mind/body must conform to its laws.

In my vision of reality, they are absolute representations, symbols of the mind's processing abilities to count the absolute bullets wizzing by your absolute head, in war___1,2,3,4, and zero___gun aimed for absolute head shot___jammed.

Your vision of reality, as is everyone else's, is relative. Absolutely no bullets is not a composite, but Einstein's premise is that once there is an object (in this case a bullet) it is a composite. So the bullet is not a bullet because it is made up of the same substance as space, and space doesn't exist as an absolute because no motion is possible according to that absolute reference frame - that frame doesn't exist. It requires motion and once there is an illusory motion of any kind it is by definition relative. The same applies to inertial mass, which right there contradicts absolute motion. If there is such a thing as absolute motion, mass would be relative to it.

Fractional, infinite reality, now that I can probably agree to___many people are fractioned___no pun intended. And I can agree to it being a fractional, infinite reality___but this must be massively qualified, quantified and its logic must be more tightly wrapped. Last sentence, true, but do one and zero have intrinsic difference unless the inferences of logic identify the object related to, that you are trying to mathematize?

No they don't. Mathematics isn't based on one or zero because it has infinities. Physics doesn't have infinities, one is existence and zero is non existence or undetectable. Absolute one/zero, which don't exist, are illusively fractionalized and from within that infinite timeframe and framework the "absolute/finite" measurements are extracted observably to give the varying impressions of solidity/reality. It's an ass-backward work of art I'd say.

I base my physics on the absolute foundations of infinite space motion/matter thermal absolutes, thermal cmbr, and the accuracy of the cesium atom of radiation thermal motion decay,

Which one of the above doesn't change, and isn't change relative because it has to occur in infinitesimal increments? I would have to say, again, that the only absolute is unchangeability, and that doesn't exist.

Niether analog or digital exist in the infinite quantum wave density of low entropy motion and cold. It's all motion, period.

Isn't that what analog is, infinite motion; and digital, finite extractions of information from that motion?

It's just a simple linear quantum motion field. Linear and angular existing together is only a property of the finite field of high entropy motion/heat___the two fields co-exist as the one absolute infinite space, but the motion properties' understandings clear up any seeming paradoxes.

It clears up many paradoxes except the most-fundamental, being the dichotomy paradox of existence and non existence which is what concerns and interests me. The absolute existence is adhered to in lieu of absolute non existence, which by default must be the greater because the absolute point of relative existence must be non-dimensional - i.e., must not exist.

Lodestar's 1/0=E formula has been very helpful to my ability to sort out all the logic and mathematics necessary to figure the finite quantum's transition/ascention into the infinite quantum space-time field of low entropy motion/temperature/thermalicity. It also allows one to envision a return voyage of the finite decayed into infinity, from infinity into the quantum motion transition/descention into the finite quantum/relative space-time field of high entropy motion/temperature/thermalicity, through a massive singularity, or many small star singularities, if you prefer.

You can figure out alot from that formula, it's not a bad formula, but what is figured out will necessarily be a relative theory based on a relative means of searching for an absolute that doesn't exist.

Simply put; 1 electron divided by the zero spin state equals the formula result of every motion in the entire infinite and finite universe, at it most base level___the finite to the infinite Lorentzian transformation and the infinite to the finite Lorentzian transformation of quantum/relative motions of all thermalicities.

I would change every to any motion because every motion simultaneously opposes the Exclusion Principle when pitted against the Uncertainty Principle, two identical quantum states....and substitute the electron with something else since it is based on h for it to exist.

Perhaps a Higg's Boson divided by itself will yield all fractional charges too, no? We're still referring to relative "motions," though.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Eric, I see we still have mis-perceptions of each's observer position. I will go through this post and state my differences. Could you please state all your absolute fundamentals of physics you are working from, so I may better clear up our differences, though I really think they be less than what you state... Please bear with me...

Originally Posted by Eric

The differences we are having are based on the classical and the enitrely non-classical.[True, but I think we difine these differently...]

I have no desire to prove even the greatest of minds wrong or limited, but they are. It's not about me, them, or you. It's about a TOE.[I agree]

All the definitions your'e working with and are trying to further, are derived from 25 centuries of assumption and approximation, and have not yet arrived at anything greater.[No, here I would have to completely dis-agree. All my ideas are based on absolutely new foundations of true infinity, first, what it really is, and second, using the old theories, maths, laws and logics to fit my new ideas and physical extensions of the foundations of physics, maths and logic. I work first in pure natural logic, from infinity down, then finiteness up, to make sure it all makes sense within the existing laws, yet far beyond it in a higher logic___a many or multi-logic of all logics, if you like.]

Every single one is based on and limited by, looking at the universe from within itself. [Eric, you far exaggerate here, as Newton certainly used a highly objective viewpoint, as have many physicists have. I agree that most is extremely subjective, especially Einstein and Heisenberg, yet there is still much objectivism, even in their rare moments. I, on the other hand, am using absolutely as an extremely objective a logic as is mentally possible. Any more extreme, and I'll self-ignite. So it is quite wrong to judge my ideas as subjective, when I full well realize the difference. Subjective is within feelings, objective is transcendence of logic to the highest logic of infinity inference into logic, as the largest size power, yet absolutely known as the weakest low entropy of all powers. This is absolutely objective inferences of the infinite fundamental knowns into this logic, and truly exhibited. If you think otherwise, you must show a different logic, and not just a stated position, as all stated positions, without scientific proof, are the subjective mystic stance. So, show me the logic of otherwise___I don't see it yet, sorry.] Even if one makes a statement that seems to include something outside of the universe, the observer is still included. There is a way for the observer to not be included, however.[Eric, the real observer, me or you is always existing in the real world of, so far, dillusional physical reality, I agree, but the mind can push the boundaries with trans-infinite perceptronic{meaning future} logic, by physically knowing how to calculate such future using entirely new higher order logic and mathematics foundations, which I have many times mentioned, in my already posted material. Check it out under profile, Posts... David, who posted today is also an excellent source for absolute fundamentals. I suggest reading his journal, also found under his profile. He and I are both very concerned that the basic laws of physics fundamentals are respected___and I do mean just the basic fundamentals, laws and truly proven knowns.]

Yes, I am introducing a "higher order logic".

In the first statement, I believe you state that it arrives. In the second statement, I belive you state that it doesn't arrive.[Eric, I have already mentioned, I state no such thing___please check.]

In the second statement, there is truth. Infinity is not just about eternal, however. It's about all that seems to be finite.[I absolutely agree, so I don't see the problem, here.]

It states that "all things finite are relative, to infinity being absolute".[If you stated this "All things finite have a relative lifespan, to infinity being and absolute lifespan", then the logic is correct, but not as stated. There are not enough inferences for precise logical understanding. I hope you see what I'm trying to show here. Talking about singularities, without enough objective inferences is incomplete logical statements, and leads to these mis-understandings you seem to see.]

So anything that seems to have a finite beginning or end, is not separate from any other thing that seems to have a finite beginning or end.[I don't think I ever said it was. I merely implied separateness as an easier way to see the whole and the parts. Just as an example, If we just try to see, as a thought experiment, finiteness and infinity as two interconnecting singularities, it simply makes it easier to understand their quantum field mechanics___the lowest entropy belongs to the infinite and the highest entropy belongs to the finite, yet the finite is of the infinite. It's just very tricky when responding to another to make the mistake of not putting enough inference in, myself included.]

Yes. That's why I say that infinity absolutely rules finite.[Eric, this is a purely mystical statement, not a scientific one. I have stated a scientific reason for infinity's weakness over the finite, even though the infinite produced it. I see no logical or mathematical proof to your mystic assumption. Where is it? To just state so is mere religion of the personal self___your own private language.] Not one finite can be created or destroyed.[Eric please, this is an absolute contradiction of both or all three physics, classical, quantum and relative. Where's something beyond your mysticism? You're a finite___you were created___weren't you? Heroshima destroyed a lot of thermal lifeforms. Radiation decay always destroys into the infinite___the energy and matter is always conserved as its new changed states___that's all.] It's not a death march.[It's a death march, until you realize scientific re-incarnation of finite to infinite to finite motion/matter/energy gives new and infinite, eternal life___always, over and over and over.] It's a life march headed towards change.[This is true, I only use the death march for clear scientific understanding, so that we may better change this real absolute world we inhabit, to the better.] Birth and death are opposites. Life is eternal.[Totally agreed___so what's the problem? But it's a long way from one eternal scientific life cycle to the very short human life cycle.]

The absolute itself, is beyond all of this, and it's entirely logical.[There is nothing beyond infinity___it is absolute___all else is religion, and we can't do science and math with religion, except to expand the ability to use our logics and emotions, to do better science. Eric, I was just shown a crucifix shell by my lovely wife, and I mean as I am typing. I've never seen anything so remarkable. It actually looks like the real thing, but is a real cross in a shell, actually from nature's ocean, here on the beaches of Mexico Beach Fl. Eric, If you care to discuss metaphysics of mind, in private e-mail, I'd be willing, but not in a public forum for me, when it covers the mystic. I will state that my metaphysical position of a year ago has turned out to be identical to the scientific revelations of late___and I mean correspondingly identical. I'd be glad to discuss it in private, only, if you like.]

Eric

Thanks at least for caring enough to respond,
Lloyd