T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[lodestar]

Thanks again for the compliments Lloyd.

I am fairly impressed with what insights you've been able to garner by considering the theory of 1/0. Allow me to think about what you've said for a while. Good work Lloyd, and thanks for helping!

-lodestar

Lodestar, very true post, and I also like John Wheeler's work about the best of all the physicists, especially his interpretation of the law you mention, and also his assessment of the self-circuitry of the universe___quite brilliant for his day, and even today. Now I'd like to mention a few ideas about 1/0=E. I will state emphatically, this is the foundation for an entirely new mathematics___The Mathematics of The Wholes and Parts. Let me show you what I've come up with:
first; Let 1 = electron singularity.
Let 0 = electron's zero spin state at finite/infinite field transformation stage, say 10^39 years hence.
Let E = entropy of its released energy/motion.
I would write this as, One 1 electron singularity, divided by its 0 zero spin state equals its final entropy into the linear infinite low entropy motion of the absolute quantum state E.
second; Let 1 = the infinite absolute singularity.
Let 0 equal the nearest to absolute thermal Kelvin possible and still allow one degree of linear motion.
Let E = Everything finite possible for infinity to create.
I would write this as, The absolute infinite space matter/energy 1 divided by nearest zero thermo-hydro-dynamic motion 0 creates everything finite possible for infinity to create E.
third; Let 1 = The finite singularity.
Let 0 = the infinite's spin motion evolution 10^127 years hence at first singularity.
Let E = The entropy of spin at relative velocity, producing first quantimized particles, internal collapse into extreme gravity of extreme thermalicity, radiation, then say 10^10 years hence, explosion.
I would write this as, The first 1 finite singularity divided by 0 the infinite's highest spin motion at first singularity equals and produces the finite space-time angular/linear motion universe E.

Now, there are three extremely important stages of universal evolution and decay states, that this new higher logic mathematical formula can be put to. This being a new whole to parts, and parts to whole mathematics, is at present, a logical expander math. In order for it to be computerized, it must be rationalized with cardinal and ordinal numbers, of huge classification, to be scientifically useful by computers and mathcad, yet is at present extremely useful for theoretical thinking and its already proven expansion abilities of logic. Now, many will say this is just the high jinx of word play. I assure you and others it is quite thoroughly thought out logic, with real correspondences to back it up. Let me know what you think of first rough efforts. I think the possibility of this formula uniting both the laws of "mythos" and the laws of "logos" has much potential, then maybe Michael and I can stop disputing. I see the whole problem of mental differences, as the sliding scaler time wave difference, between infinity's and finite's differences and understandings of the entire universe's true scientific life cycle. Oh, and on a final note, since its a math of wholes and parts, it is now possible to accomplish what Whitehead and Russel failed to do, truly unite logic and math, full circle...

regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lloyd,

Just a couple of things I've noticed.

I don't think there is an actual "area" of infinity. Any finite value(s) is actually infinite. The idea that there is a break in this rule at any place, even the entire universe, is misleading. Multi-verse is a no-go. [I agree Eric, I was only mentioning it as something I really ruled out. Multi-verse is a no-go in my book also.]

Infinty is infinity is infinity, as it were. I didn't mean any disrespect in stating earlier, that "I'm looking at infinity from outside itself and I think you're looking at it from inside".

I'm looking at infinity from the standpoint of the absolute, which is greater than infinity. I'm looking inwards from there.[Same here, almost. My difference is I see absolute and absolute infinity as the same, and only object necessary to complete the science/physcis life cycle.]

There are some basic principles at work (or in play), that we first have to establish, before we can see that math and physics agree. I'm glad you see this as being more wholistic than classic science.

Without discussing anything else for the moment, the principle of infinity and finite, say it all about what the universe really is.

The universe "appears" (finite event horizons) to exist, but it doesn't "actually" exist (infinity never arriving at a point). Again, infinity ruling finite.[No Eric, I'd have to disagree there. I also believe infinity never arrives at a point, but the universe absolutely exists. Infinity doesn't rule the finite, it accomadates it and equilibriates its motions, IMHO.]

But infinity is ruled by something greater. That which actually exists (the absolute) and the one thing that does not exist (absolutely nothing).[You see, to me, when you say the absolute, like it's something beyond with great power, you are adding unnecessary parts to the puzzle. I use Ocham's razzor to the max. The infinite is the absolute of absolutes. The absolute infinite singularity, can produce nothing but absolutes, isomorphic carbon copies of itself, singularities all the way down.]

Absolute > infinity > finite. [That leaves absolute undefined, so it's nothing. Zero. Zilch. No undefines allowed in science. Absolute inference of objects or logic, or through it out.]

There's so much more to the fundamental principles, before we even get to the physics or math, but I'll stop here.[Fundamental principles are of logic, not I fear, of objects.]

Eric

PS: I'm much into Wheeler also. I feature a quote of his, along with Einstein and Hawking on the cover page of my paper.

Interesting, Lloyd

[Nobody]

Lode,

I had said long ago that 1/0 is not a number. It's half an equation based on two non-existent absolutes, with the other half being zero. The zero merely represents the fact that both don't exist.

It is justified logically by the fact that infinity cannot be capped. Both the top and bottom points of your graph are never reached - never exist - and hence don't exist. There is only infinity, an infinite spectrum, with an infinite number of finite measurements possible in between. Part of which accounts for the observable universe, aka, the visible-light spectrum.

And the magnet is never absolutely combined because it requires two things to exist (relative (opposite of absolute) to each other). The central line between North and South is neither North nor South, it doesn't exist; as does bringing North pole and South pole completly (absolutely) together, they cease to exist at the absolute central point. Further, you might realize that that merge can be referenced at any point from North to South, so in essence all points don't exist until quantized through time dilation.

Lloyd,

First of all I don't think this can be an empirical physics or theoretical physics conversation. The former is based on limiting observations, and the latter is based on infinities which can't correspond to the absolute. What speed could we attribute to light without it having to be absorbed and emitted through the cmb? It would be so fast that it wouldn't be moving at all!

Between the non-existent one and zero, there is infinite speed, mass, energy, time, temperature, etc.. Only fractionalized quanta can exist. Whereas the absolute doesn't take into account fractions, but completely merges them together to the absolute point of non-existence.

So, the relative circumstantial universe is above and below "you," based upon a persistence of existence according to relative circumstances, without which neither you nor the universe can exist.

If I have your interpretation of the universal contraction and expansion right, you're saying that infinite space can localize a finite space-time field consisting of the entire known universe's energy that can in turn expand into infinity...inflation, big bang scenario. Somewhat right?

How can there be literal motion, through I'm thinking a rubbery type of space (?), when the required internal pressure for any type of movement is far less than the infinite external pressure? It's like your body trying to move buried in set cement.

I bit myself again, btw, and experienced its relative effect based on the laws of relativity required for my hand and teeth to exist. Your point is noted, though, just not absolutely.

So the paradox still remains when classical mechanics is adhered to. It just seems to be solved. The linear wave density of infinite low entropy substratic motion can't exist because the external cold is too contractive for there to be any motion whatsoever.

[lodestar]

Nobody,

Why do you say 1/0 is not a number? Because you don't understand it, that's why. You think 1/0 can't exist because it represents the limit of limitlessness, but what's wrong with that? That's the beauty of it man. I understand it perfectly so there's no reason you shouldn't be able to too.

If you believe that 1/0 can never be reached, then perhaps you'd like to tell me what will happen to the universe when it reaches an absolute rate of expansion? This absolute rate of expansion is perfectly well defined as when two points in the universe seperated by only a planck distance begin expanding away from eachother at greater than the speed of light. When this happens, the force of dark energy will be 1/0 and thus space time will completely undergo an exversal. That is when 1/0 is reached. So you see, I've got this stuff figured out my friend.

Also if you believe that 1/0 can never be reached then what would it mean if I was to break the speed of light and travel instantaneously? Wouldn't that give me an absolute speed of 1/0? Isn't 1/0 the greatest speed possible? So how can you say it doesn't exist?? Maybe you just haven't realized the truth of the absolute limitless value of 1/0. But again, if I can understand it, then there's no excuse for you not to be able to too.

[Eric]

I disagree, because perfect logic actually says that if everything is defined then nothing is undefined. Furthermore, I never naturally assumed that nothing existed.

So what is it that logically proves, that everything has been reached and there is not one thing left out? And what logically proves that nothing is not just another part of everything?

I have successfully and correctly defined everything in a mathematical and physical framework because I realized the truth in the number 1/0 which all other mathematicians were afraid of.

An absolute "object" (not a subject) has to have no outside, even to itself. You have 1 and 0 subject to each other. You have to get rid of the 0.

What I meant to say was that everything is not just possible, it is destined. In other words, everything has already happened or everything will come to be in time.

That still doesn't arrive at "IS".

Similarly that's why the universe started after an instantaneous period of inflation instead of starting at an actual zero point.

"After an instantaneous period of inflation" of what? Wouldn't this state that time was pre-existent? And what does inflation include. Is it mass into space, space into mass, or both? We have mass in space and space in mass, so how was it arranged at the big bang (which you have time preceeding)?

In addition, if gravity was present at the supposed big bang, then what caused it to let go of its "attractive" grip and allow for an inflation that it now controls? (GR predicts a gravitational singularity "before" the big bang).

This whole question can be much more accurately explained, by using two dimensionless points, with one at the center of the other.

[lodestar]

To Eric,

The definition of nothing and everything proves that nothing is not part of everything because if nothing was part of everything then everything would be nothing. It as simple and complex as that.

An absolute object either has no outside, or it forms it's own outside. Everything therefore has no outside outside of itself, and therefore everything is all that exists and nothing does not exist. So 1/0 is subject to 0/1 only in the respect that they are exactly the same but exact opposites. This may be referred to as the irony of truth.

When I say everything is destined I mean either everything has already happened or everything will come to be in time. We cannot tell which. So what this mean is that everything simply is, eternal, just like you said.

The big bang did not emerge from a true singularity. The big bang came from negative time (with respect to our universe) and contracted through an infinitely small point untill it started expanding into positive time (that's the part we see). This is like the time inverse of what would happen if you sent an object faster than the speed of light. So in other words our universe is really just an object that was sent faster than the speed of light from a higher dimension (a dimension where the speed of light is greater than c). So when that object exceeded the speed of light the result was the big bang - our universe. But as I said, the big bang never went through a complete singularity, it skipped directly over the singularity. Skipping directly over 0 is basically like a quantum leap. So since the big bang skipped over the singularity, information was not destroyed and that is why we have a certain cosmic background radiation. The cosmic background radiation is left over from how the object that became our universe looked when it left the higher dimension. If the universe really came from a singularity then the cosmic background radiation would be uniform. So the period of inflation is the instantaneous skipping over of the singularity. We only see half of this, the half that occurrs in our positive time. The other half is on the other side of time. So the period of inflation in the early universe that is observed in astrophysics is described perfectly well in the theory of 1/0. In the same right, if you were to exceed the speed of light, you would actually make a quantum leap directly over it, rather than truly passing through it. That is the only thing that allows you to break the speed of light, by jumping directly over it. That is why the universe had a period of inflation and that is why we have a certain cosmic background radiation instead of just uniformity.

-lodestar

[lodestar]

Lloyd,

Can you please specify what you mean by "the infinite's spin motion evolution 10^127 years hence at first singularity."

[Eric]

The definition of nothing and everything proves that nothing is not part of everything because if nothing was part of everything then everything would be nothing. It as simple and complex as that.

I agree with what you're saying in principle and it isn't complex.

Maybe more succinctly, you would say there is not absolutely nothing outside of absolutely everything. Everything being the absolute object, expressed in numbers as 1/0. The only subtle problem I have with it, is that it makes a secondary statement about everything that has to occur within everything. Doesn't it say that 1 (everything) is indivisble?

So 1/0 is subject to 0/1 only in the respect that they are exactly the same but exact opposites. This may be referred to as the irony of truth.

Again, I agree with this in prinicple. They are opposites and contingent upon each other, but are they equals? Isn't one of them greater than the other? Doesn't one have a different postion and function than the other?

Without an inequality, don't you have a cancellation?

When I say everything is destined I mean either everything has already happened or everything will come to be in time. We cannot tell which. So what this mean is that everything simply is, eternal, just like you said.

When I say "IS", I'm refering to something beyond time, space, and mass. I personally don't think the universe has happened or is happening. A "happening" is a finite event horizon that we have never proved and won't.
As I've stated to Lloyd and he seems to agree, infinite rules finite. This means the universe is only a state of potential of "will happen". It will never arrive at happen. The universe isn't actual. But what do we care? If we sense that it is, that should be good enough.

The big bang did not emerge from a true singularity. The big bang came from negative time (with respect to our universe) and contracted through an infinitely small point untill it started expanding into positive time (that's the part we see).

Doesn't negative pass by 0 on it's way to positive? And what is an "infinitely small point"? There isn't one.

Here's a quick alternative. Place an absolute 0 at the center of an absolute 1. Have the 1 focused in at it's center and the 0 reflecting out from the center. Call this actual reality.

Then ask yourself what happens between a reflection and a focus.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, just thought I'd show you two places where your fractionalizations are needed to unite the ideas being presented here. The formula 1/0=E needs your fractionalizations to represent the largest and smallest numbers possible to rationally represent 1 and zero, when directly and truly corresponding the the actual finite and infinite world's extremes. The extreme of 1 infinity, and the extreme of 0kelvin must be rationalized into an entirely new and logical representation of an entirely new and as true as possible a mathematics. Of course this won't be absolute mathematics, as you are describing it, but it would be accurate to understand entirely new models of the absolutely real entire universe. Do you think, now, you can see where your ideas start to fit? Also, your fractionalization, as you have mentioned is the quantimization of infinite space's first singularity, whether it be star or hot big bang. Fractionalization theories of yours describe quantum processes inside singularities, as I have theorized them, just as Lodestar's inversal and exversal exactly describe the two universal stages of quantum entropy, i.e., matter takes on heat with motion=mass=inversal___reaches relative velocity=exversal=entropy___and becomes what we also know as relativity. As I said relativity is no more than high entropy, high velocity classical heat motion___boiling water's entropy cycle is identical at lower motion. All universal entropy is basically identical, except for having different thermalicity points. So, we need your ideas as much as Lode's and Eric's. It will all jell in the long run.

Let me make a few comments below;

[quote=Nobody;21787]Lode,

I had said long ago that 1/0 is not a number. It's half an equation based on two non-existent absolutes, with the other half being zero. The zero merely represents the fact that both don't exist.[How do you explain the fact I see it?___it exists___as a question to our feeble logics.]

It is justified logically by the fact that infinity cannot be capped.[In the absolute truth, that is correct___but, it doesn't stop any logical mathematician from adding up all radiation decays of the finite universes matter/energy/motion/years/distances that they will certainly expand/inflate into___how big an infinity would all this be at 10^137 years hence? Then mathematically how much more space is logically required to fill absolute infinity to build the next universe? As near as possible approximations are all that's required to build accurate functioning motion models___true not absolute___but close enough to totally understand a physics TOE___Then comes the TOE.] Both the top and bottom points of your graph are never reached - never exist - and hence don't exist. There is only infinity, an infinite spectrum, with an infinite number of finite measurements possible in between.[So you do admit the absolute finite?___That's a good start, as I like the absolute finite much better than the absolute infinite___I live here, even though it surrounds me, and permeates me.] Part of which accounts for the observable universe, aka, the visible-light spectrum.

And the magnet is never absolutely combined because it requires two things to exist (relative (opposite of absolute) to each other). The central line between North and South is neither North nor South, it doesn't exist; as does bringing North pole and South pole completly (absolutely) together, they cease to exist at the absolute central point. Further, you might realize that that merge can be referenced at any point from North to South, so in essence all points don't exist until quantized through time dilation.[No points exist until finitely quantimized through thermalicity, or as you say time dilation, but there is no reversing the thermal arrow of time___except at the edge of all finite light and radiation motion cones into low entropy nearest zero kelvin t.h.d. infinite motion.]

Lloyd,

First of all I don't think this can be an empirical physics or theoretical physics conversation. The former is based on limiting observations, and the latter is based on infinities which can't correspond to the absolute. What speed could we attribute to light without it having to be absorbed and emitted through the cmb?[Light speed has nothing to do with cmbr, we can just use it as the evidence of a past light velocity difference. If all the universes emitted radiation were brought back into the finite universe, it would first increase the mass density of the eather, then going back still further would increase the mass density of source, stars and hot big bang___causing considerable increase in the outside observer's light speed___we inside would know nothing of this except the universe no longer being able to support life, and we die___light speed to fast to support life. There is a deffinite equilibrium of motions that supports the life spectrum___we're living proof. And when you say correspond to the naked absolute, it is undefined___the absolute what?] It would be so fast that it wouldn't be moving at all! [And secondly, as the finite universe, at its cmbr edges, loses radiation to infinity light doesn't increase, it decreases___loss of mass density of object, not medium. Mass density increase of medium, eather, decreases light velocity. Mass density increase{heat motion} of star, singularity___source___increases the velocity of light___this is the law of thermalicity, or usually known as the laws of thermodynamics.]

Between the non-existent one and zero, there is infinite speed, mass, energy, time, temperature, etc..[Here Nobody, I would only agree to energy and time, the others are finite attributes. And where, scientifically, do you see infinite speed, anywhere? Or infinite mass? Or temperature?] Only fractionalized quanta can exist.[The entire finite universe is fractionalized infinity into quantimizations] Whereas the absolute doesn't take into account fractions, but completely merges them together to the absolute point of non-existence.[What absolute?___it is here undefined, i.e., nada, zip, zilch...]

So, the relative circumstantial universe is above and below "you," based upon a persistence of existence according to relative circumstances, without which neither you nor the universe can exist.[I don't mean to get too picky, but this sounds more like "mythos" than "logos."]

If I have your interpretation of the universal contraction and expansion right, you're saying that infinite space can localize a finite space-time field consisting of the entire known universe's energy that can in turn expand into infinity...inflation, big bang scenario. Somewhat right?[Quite correct.]

How can there be literal motion, through I'm thinking a rubbery type of space (?), when the required internal pressure for any type of movement is far less than the infinite external pressure?[Do you forget the external infinite imploding pressure is low entropy very low pressure, at nearest possible zero kelvin?___I only mention nearest zero Kelvin, because we know the known 3.7 kelvin is measured within the high entropy finite field of hot motion quantimization___some estimate the plazma field at some actual 2000 degrees___Maybe Dave can clear up the real temp, since he worked in plasma physics] It's like your body trying to move buried in set cement.[The absolute motion offers very little resistance___I think a finite/infinity exploding could overcome it, hands down. Look how easily light travels through 3.7k___the infinite linear quantum field makes quite a nice paved or cement highway.]

I bit myself again, btw, and experienced its relative effect based on the laws of relativity required for my hand and teeth to exist. Your point is noted, though, just not absolutely.[I think the problem between me and you and Eric is that you think infinite absolute and I think about the infinite absolute from and as the classical finite absolute.]

So the paradox still remains when classical mechanics is adhered to. It just seems to be solved. The linear wave density of infinite low entropy substratic motion can't exist because the external cold is too contractive for there to be any motion whatsoever.[There are two mistakes here Nobody. One, there are no paradoxes, except those thinking them so. Two, Then why isn't the actual finite universe's 3.7k contractive{only one answer___the finite singularity existed and exploded, creating both vacuum and massive expansion and even an inflationary age. There will also be a future inflationary age.} Oh, third, you say can't exist?___then why is it here as every night's cold___where is your cold quantum particle/wave? It don't exist anywhere else. The low entropy cold linear quantum, is, the only answer. Or if you can explain where it is, I'd be very interested. You see low entropy linear thermal waves are required, as all quantimized waves are high entropy motion heat. High velocity is impossible of being cold___all the laws of physics and motion prevent it. All high motion is heat___angular motion is heat___period.][/quote]

Hope I haven't been too punishing on you Nobody, you are an excellent sparring partner. I enjoy your critique angles. Keep up the great work..

regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hey Eric, where's that explanation of your idea, of the absolute? Sorry for butting in, couldn't resist...

So what is it that logically proves, that everything has been reached and there is not one thing left out? And what logically proves that nothing is not just another part of everything? [The logic that there ain't no logic there, Eric. The logic of an absolute nothing has no logic___tis impossible to apply logic to a non-existant___it possesses nothing to infer into logic. ]

An absolute "object" (not a subject) has to have no outside, even to itself. You have 1 and 0 subject to each other. You have to get rid of the 0.[Eric, let me just step in here a minute. I now see your logic is not the same as the absolute form of logic I use. You seem to use some mixed imaginal logic, I'm not sure, but I've noticed your comments lean to an entirely different deffinition of the absolute, than mine. I noticed you capitalized it designating some beyond science, is that true? I define absolute as anything the finite logic can prove, test and confirm is absolutely real, and even in logic, if enough principles and laws agree___this one is tricky. I use a trans-finite, trans-infinite logic from the absolute finite being of self, and infer the infinite into it. You seem to use something non-absolute, yet define it as being installed in the absolute. Absolute simple means real object, to me, and nothing else. BTW, IMO any real object is an absolute object to me, whether it be universe or brain, or all the brains essence and its essence agents. It almost identically resembles the universe's internal thermal motions... regards, LLoyd]

That still doesn't arrive at "IS".[I is. "I" is. i is. All known is.]

"After an instantaneous period of inflation" of what? Wouldn't this state that time was pre-existent? And what does inflation include. Is it mass into space, space into mass, or both? We have mass in space and space in mass, so how was it arranged at the big bang (which you have time preceeding)?

In addition, if gravity was present at the supposed big bang, then what caused it to let go of its "attractive" grip and allow for an inflation that it now controls? (GR predicts a gravitational singularity "before" the big bang).[Ahhhh... Big Bang?]

This whole question can be much more accurately explained, by using two dimensionless points, with one at the center of the other.

[I'd like to see that... Afraid it's not possible. Demensionless means sub-h___the exclusion principle of physics prevents us from knowing anything about it... Try again....]