T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Nobody]

I think you mean energy is mass released, but at infinite speed without any concepts of relative time dilation for energy transfers to occur, that release is the same state as absolute zero.

What you said here: "Then I ask, how could there ever be any such foolish idea as nothing?" That question conflicts with the point I try to make, there isn't any foolish idea of nothing because nothing doesn't exist. Philosophical renderings of such a "thing" as nothing is misleading, because relative time which spatial constructs are dependent on stands still - ceases to exist in any way.

There is a large difference, infinite difference, in a state where zero-point energy can be quantized as heat, mass, time, measurements and a state of a non-dimensional point. All physicists, the true kind, focus on the before/after of annihilation which produces energy and mass, but not on the point of origin of the annihilation. One, energy, is monopolar from a non-existent point; and the other, mass, is dipolar. The interactions in the form of relative measurements of heat, light, mass, energy, etc. must arise from the absolute point - non-existence - in order for fundamental quantities to have their intrinsic values. The axes, so to speak, don't exist as matter, energy, heat, or anything else.

This is a mathematical view of sort of expressing the idea. yet, it refers more to the above-mentioned philosophical notions that explain more the functioning of relativity which is internal and not to be confused with the only possible absolute state of the universe.


How can zero be greater than one? This sounds like nonsense. Or perhaps we are touching on something completely different. Naturally in order to find out we must explore some unfamiliar terrain. However, keep in mind, that we are not considering a change to, or something new in, ordinary mathematics. The mathematical system developed since the dawn of human reasoning functions in relation to the definitive world of things that we observe each day. That system counts things, and it is a valid system evidenced by its application to the physical universe. And yet it is noteworthy, even important, that we notice how that system cannot describe the universe as a whole, as words and our thinking minds can. In math as we count a world of things we count upward into an endless abyss of numbers. If we wish to understand and describe the universe with a mathematical system that is able to represent the universe as a whole, then we have to make a switch and see the world in an entirely different way. Remember the first equation:

(1 + (-1)) + (2 + (-2)) + (3 + (-3)) +... = 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0

The simplest most straightforward way of summing all numbers is to sum the equal but opposite numbers together as shown above. So for a moment we will imagine that the correct sum of all numbers does sum up to and equal zero. Except this means that we need to change the value of zero away from being no things. We need to treat zero as the largest value in the mathematical system which actually includes the two infinities of positive and negative numbers. Suddenly zero has become an infinite whole that contains all other numbers. Every positive and every negative number on the real number plane is summing or combining together to form an ultimate number of absolute value. Obviously this is not math as we know it. This is a math without time, without process, a math of real infinite values.

http://everythingforever.com/st_math.htm

[dleviwing]

Absolute 1: (MATTER) There exists a fixed quantity of a fundamental entity of the universe that produces all physical phenomena.

Absolute 2: (MOTION) The physical entity of the universe has a fixed quantity of motion. All autonomous systems of this substance within this universe will have this motion quantity.

Absolute 3: (BONDING) The physical entity of the universe adheres to itself. This property is only influence in its strength by the influence and phase relationship of motion.

Absolute 4: (COSMOLOGICAL VOID) The physical entity of the universe occupies a volume of an infinite place.

If you cannot reduce your concepts or understanding of the basic functioning of the universe into these simple absolutes, then you do not as yet comprehend the true fundamental functionality of this universe. If you continue to follow the absurd interpretations put forth by the current theories of science, then you will only make good science fiction writers. Get your act together or join the science circus. It make me ill every time I hear or read a post in witch someone expresses our universe in terms of Relativity or QM without actually understanding these concepts or even understanding the basic paradigms of scientific methodology.

If you believe in nothing, then you know nothing.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Absolute 1: (MATTER) There exists a fixed quantity of a fundamental entity of the universe that produces all physical phenomena.

Absolute 2: (MOTION) The physical entity of the universe has a fixed quantity of motion. All autonomous systems of this substance within this universe will have this motion quantity.

Absolute 3: (BONDING) The physical entity of the universe adheres to itself. This property is only influence in its strength by the influence and phase relationship of motion.

Absolute 4: (COSMOLOGICAL VOID) The physical entity of the universe occupies a volume of an infinite place.

If you cannot reduce your concepts or understanding of the basic functioning of the universe into these simple absolutes, then you do not as yet comprehend the true fundamental functionality of this universe. If you continue to follow the absurd interpretations put forth by the current theories of science, then you will only make good science fiction writers. Get your act together or join the science circus. It make me ill every time I hear or read a post in witch someone expresses our universe in terms of Relativity or QM without actually understanding these concepts or even understanding the basic paradigms of scientific methodology.

If you believe in nothing, then you know nothing.

David is correct, guys. Get your absolute fundamentals straight!

regards,

[Nobody]

I agree, that's a good explanation, Dleviwing, but I would replace the term "absolute" with "relative" because the properties you listed are relative. Bonded matter in motion through space is illusory, because there is no room for any "thing" to move. When we think of things in terms of separation, we can depict matter in motion relative to space, but not in absolute terms where in actuality matter is made up of space. We shouldn't have to invoke magical space between "things" in order to make our relative theories work, and saying something is "just because" doesn't make it so. The scientific method is limited by relativity, and relativity is limited by dualistic nature. The absolute state, or non-state, of the universe doesn't and shouldn't have to conform to the dictates of relativistic standards.

Yet, relative matter in motion can be explained without the paradoxical side effects by it being recreated over an infinite number of non-dimensional points, much like an animation on a computer screen. There is no literal movement, but a recreated quantity of bits of information gives the impression of movement. Taken a step further, the distance between points of "matter" can be explained in terms of time instead of space.

Looking at your hand in front of your face, you would naturally think is different from getting a slap in the face because there is a spatial distance between them, but if your hand and face occupied the same non-dimensional point at different times, then space must be an illusion of time. The "view" of the hand and the "slap" by the hand can be the result of slowing down the speed of light, which is infinite within a non-dimensional point because there is no distance to travel. This is based in part on the Uncertainty Principle which if we pinpoint position, which we have, velocity increases to infinity - zero space means then infinite speed; infinite speed means space shrinks to zero - very simple.

To make it perhaps clearer, slowing down this speed creates not only observable mass - infinite gathering of infinitesimal particles - but stretches no time to infinity proportionate to the reduction in speed, the reason for the claim of "c" in a not-so-vacuous vacuum.

All possible states, every conceivable scenario, can be seen then to occur at the same point but at different times. Whereby, in the instance of the hand referred to above, it has already slapped you in the face but not until you are consciously/observably aware of it. This is the point when consciousness becomes a factor in merging with the subconscious functioning of subatomic particles, when the view of the hand becomes a realized state, from the reduction of infinite speed which increases space to the point of impact. Which is based on momentum through time, not space.

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
That is the pure gibberish BS that I have been talking about as being a problem. If you don’t know, then learn. You haven’t a clue of what Relativity means but you certainly KNOW nothing.

[zeroca]

Hello, Nobody-namesake!
Very nice to read your posts; Might I’m not so educated, but anyway share a great deal of your belief.
Everybody says that nothing doesn’t exist, and that’s pure truth…
If the term - existence is considered as any process or any phenomenon in 3D-space inside time, then nothing doesn’t exist, and for characterizing such state we have the term – nonexistence, but any existing in 3D-space-time phenomenon can’t (is “deprived” the capability to) exist transcendentally – outside of 3D-space-time, so briefly the term nonexistence can be interpreted as existence transcendentally, i.e.
Nothing does exist transcendentally, and what’s more: only it can exist transcendentally…
But for some reason people interpret transcendentally existent as something “outside of limits” of universe – to say figuratively “outside of ultimate border of it”;
Every member, who is familiar with me, knows that I also consider this universe as sum of two opposite phenomena:
The space (as antimatter) as opposite of graviry generally…

As for the basic construction of the existing whole universe:
The matter in two opposite states: concentrated (i.e. contracted) and rarefied (i.e. expended)…
The anti-matter (i.e. 3Dspace) in two opposite states: as rarefaction and expansion…
The ultimate form of expanded matter – the light (when speed is maximal and the mass – minimal, i.e. maximal activity);
The ultimate form of contracted matter – solid matter (when speed is minimal and the mass – maximal, i.e. maximal passivity – free fall and turning of planets on their own axis and around each-other);
Man and woman, day and night, summer and winter, spring and autumn, left and right parts of body, two different poles, and so on…
The only phenomenon in the universe, which is single, is nothingness, but I don’t obtrude my theory on anybody, as it’s only my belief, which can be true or false (50-50%).

As for a big bang, I’d repeat told by me before that I don’t agree that any materialization existed just before Big Bang. The term “Big Bang” doesn’t mean anything like bang. I think it’s only introduced to emphasize “the process that takes place “everywhere” simultaneously”.
And that’s really it:
If there didn’t existed anything that means that there existed only nothing, even there didn’t exist even two different eternally small points, as the space and time didn’t exist (“nonexistence” didn’t take place within time and space). When we say that the process began from some center it doesn’t mean that this center really existed and it had size. We probably want to figure to ourselves how the process of existence started. As nothing is homogeneous, it means that it’s equal or rather the same in its “different places”, so we can figure it as one center, but it doesn’t mean that this imaginable center is any kind of accumulation of energy.
It only can considered as bearer of potential for arising of the world, as it had a possibility of change (the only kind of change within this “center”, or within nothing is splitting of it into two opposite phenomena), so the assertion that something existed before the world arose I think is illogical, cause the question from what this “something “originated demands explanation as well.
My statement might be trivial, but I don’t see any other way.

Best regards,
zeroca.

[Nobody]

I don't think it's trivial, zeroca, but that would depend on what picture of reality you have. Science-minded individuals might consider it trivial because they believe empirical evidence is the "real deal" and metaphysics and first philosophy have been largely taken for granted, basically because the scientific method can't penetrate as deep as the reality of nature.

I posted on another thread a quote from Einstein, who developed theories of relativity to begin with, stating: "The difference between past, present and future is an illusion." Considering his m=E/c^2, it seems he would concur that matter is relative - i.e., not absolute at all, and the same applies to motion, bonding (?) and cosmological vacuums (clearly not an absolute vacuum).

The very simple equation: 0=1-1, should mean just that. Absolute nothingness is equal to the forces that create matter and the negation of those forces. We can try to work together to simplify terms based on extending empirical evidence to logical conclusions, or we can continue to chase after smaller and smaller particles while creating more and more complex theories that are bound to fail outside of their relative frameworks. I agree theories are helpful to create things in this world, but using a relative means to uncover absolute reality is a faux pas, imo.

I went out of my way to explain why I believe the things I do, and Dleviwing claims it is wrong "just because" or worse, that it is wrong based on my lack of understanding the "absolutes" of relativity. Needless to say, by definition of those contradictory terms alone, an elaboration as to where exactly my understanding fails would be appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your insights, zeroca. Each piece shared is important in order to fit them together to create our own picture of the puzzle.

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
If you wish to claim you comprehend the current distribution of bull, then I would suggest you learn the correct way to present the bull so everyone is saying the right things with the wrong interpretive philosophical paradigm as a theory. Don’t add more alligators to the swamp when the objective is to drain it.

There are mountains of imperial data that is being explained with theories that do not provide completeness and cannot be joined due to incompatible terms.

I have offered these “ABSOLUTES” hoping there would be a willingness to think. Like always, it seems each individual feels they must be spoon fed or individually tutored.

The main problem with scientific paradigms today is the fact that the numbers that represent the term “mass” (and other science terms) are not truly understood. With these absolutes, mass is the uniform motion component of “Absolute Motion”. The other component is the randomized wave function component of matter. Wave functions become uniform motion only when they are harmonic standing waves of an autonomous system having the equivalent of “Absolute Motion”. This requires angular uniform motion of the system.

You can understand my disappointment in the ToeQuest members who still wish to use absurd terminology to explain simple physical behavior. For example: Matter and antimatter are both made of the same physical entity of the universe. Fundamental matter does not have an opposite form or type.
Angular motion produces the magnetic component of electromagnetic waves and spatial density produces the electrical component. Spatial waves are collections of interference domains that can be referred to as virtual particles or domains that exist for less time than we can measure or detect them. These are sometimes interpreted as Higgs Bosons. Trace the terms charge, magnetic fields, particles, and the forces of nature back to the “Absolutes” and you too will recognize the simplicity of the mechanical universe. When you comprehend this part, you can start asking what causes matter to acquire consciousness and maybe why did it evolve into such irresponsible creatures.

DO YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW????

[Nobody]

I don't wish to denigrate your knowledge of physics, leviwing, but you simply don't seem to know the difference between absolute and relative. So-called absolute values that are dependent upon other assigned absolute values are relative, and are the result of finagling out of having to deal with infinities. They have nothing to do with the only possible absolute state of the universe I propose.

I have traced back charge, magnetic fields, particles, and the forces of nature back to their absolutes, and came up with the theory of nothing. So, no, I don't want to know about charges and magnetic fields, but want to know about the point where crests and troughs cancel to zero. You can't talk about uniform angular motion or momentum classically when absolute motion is an impossibility, and therefore intrinsic spin is relative to the above-mentioned absolute state of the universe - nothing on the inside of all matter, and nothing on the outside of the universe.

It seems as though you're trying to eqaute Einstein with Newton, and I don't think it can be done.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, in your battle with David, you are the one of absolute B.S. You haven't a clue of what you're talking about. If you would simply read the Copenhagen Agreement by the world's most eminent physicists in 1936, I believe, you would realize that all quantum and relative physics must be mathematically figured in classical Newtonian math. Even Einstein himself stated; "We think in relative terms, we live in the real world." Go back to school and learn the true basics, instead of the bull. Only classical math correctly interprets the relativity, you so poorly, absolutely do not understand.

regards,