T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

For there to be a reality based on the science that you’ve conveyed so far, which is based upon observable and verifiable knowledge, there must be observers who make such claims as to the existence of the universe - true science must be based on this. So for me to use my logic, not the scientific method, in a particular fashion that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe can’t exist without observers, why do you keep insisting that you could prove otherwise based on empirical evidence using the scientific method?

Because, the above is an old argument, even since Geordano days. You and I exist, so it's a moot point, and all argument against existence are redundant tautologies. The best way to understand these points is to answer the question; "Can mind/spirit exist as a state of pure energy, lacking any matter motions?" Iff the mind/spirit question is answered yes, then what is this energy? One side will say it's always been, or it's manifestation, etc. But the other side will say energy is not a fundamental state, only matter in motion is, which produces all energy. Which side are you on? If you say the pure energy side, then logic must classify you as metaphysical or mystic, because science already knows different, and has for years. If you answer matter motion, then you admit to our side. Which...? If you admit to our side, then it's already been decided, the observer is inconsequential to the existence of the universe___it exists independently of us or any human mind. What's wrong with the cockroaches seeing it? Since they'll be here long after we nuke ourselves into oblivion... Here's a statement I recently penned, "An absolutely true metaphysical being, is absolutely impossible, in an absolutely true logical universe." BTW, I'm not painting you as a metaphysician, as I see your physics abilities, it's just I'm trying to totally comprehend your varriances of thought trains, from your two natural sides of metaphysical and physics, and wondering if it's natural, or intended...?

As to your logic, when one uses logic, it must be logical to others, or it is seen as illogical or metaphysical. The laws of finite logic must be followed to be logical to others. Logic can only be interpreted logical, iff finite, or based on the finite realities...

regards,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The best that has been offered by others so far is that “existence has continued fine even though observers have come and gone,” but that is kinda dopey because the ones making that claim are other observers. The objective reality you continue to root for, Lloyd, is an asymmetrical display of matter/energy. And, agreed, must be conserved in order to remain an observable reality. Yet, if there is no such thing as matter and energy, which is my point, Lloyd, there is no need to conserve that which doesn’t exist.

So, since there's no matter and energy, what are you? A mystic ghost, with superluminal powers of another dimension? How are you writing on this page if you don't exist? Because, if matter and energy don't exist, you don't exist___and that's finite logic. You know, I'd suggest a little Tarski to straighten out the understanding of predicate subject logic and linguistics, but I realize you want to exercize your rights to re-interpret logic's rules, so we'll have to establish one base issue or word to debate, me thinks...

You, a relative observer, continue to view a line of time representative of spatial points - it takes X amount of years to evolve to a particular condition. You would view the time it takes to get from point A to point B, and refer to that as an intrinsic property of the universe. But there are two ways to ways to erase that partial concept of time: the first is to, obviously, merge point A and point B - no time to reach point B; the second is to increase the velocity of the object travelling to point B - to the extent that it takes no time to reach point B. Now, you said before that c can not be breached. It is 300,000 km/s, even though that has admittedly changed, in a vacuum. Is that honestly (absolutely) a true (absolute) vacuum, Lloyd?…No, it’s not, so your “c” point becomes moot, and “c” actually being infinite in an absolute vacuum becomes a certainty.

Here's a way to answer you with one of your own points from another post. Let's take the rod example. Let the rod be 100 million light years long. Turn end a and it will take 100 million years for end b to turn, providing light can travel at c through a steel rod. Of course, we know it would, in reality, travel slower, due to matter and mass density. Also if end a were turned 360 degrees fast enough, end b would overturn due to torque, in 100 million years___that's EPR truth. And, 300,000 km/s is c in vacuum. A true absolute vacuum has been figured by probability math, of actions at .1mk, to have little more effect on c at absolute 0K. We reached .1mk above absolute zero as long ago as 1935, with he. Recent experiments have taken it lower still with rubidium gas and he^2, so that theory goes out the window. Infinite c in an absolute vacuum is pure mysticism, and at best, extreme exaggeration.

I wish you'd pay a bit more attention to recent advances in science and physics...

regards,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Now, for velocity to be considered infinite, we have to look into what light actually is and isn’t. At the observable level, we could say that light is photons travelling to and fro being absorbed and re-emitted, refracted, split, etc. through space. But that doesn’t take into account the root point, which is the central point of the creation and annihilation of overlapping dipolar “particles.” So, this means that there is no movement possible anywhere in the universe because frankly there is no “place” for anything to move. And the Uncertainty Principle becomes certain at 0 Kelvin, which means that the position of all “particles” is everywhere at the same time - again, no time at all, Lloyd. A relative “particle” at this end of the universe is at the other end of the universe, too. Isn’t that an amazing display of non-action at a distance?

Non-action or non-truth? You are mis-informed above, there is plenty of room for all sub-molecular motion, when all the field and wave/particle sizes are truely considered. Just realize how much room there is inside an h-bomb, as the atoms are first colliding, until enough pressure is reached to breach the heavy steel container shell___if there's room inside an h-bomb to move, I guess we don't have to worry about the emmense space of the universe, now do WE? Your uncertainty principle at 0K is mysticism, sorry. I already covered EPR in the last post. All recent exaggerations stating action at a distance are mysticism, also, so you have lots of company___but fundamental physics___it ain't...

Ultimately, my theory is not based on existence, while the TOE doesn‘t exist, but both the TOE and TON are equated by the non-existence of the absolute. Both the “1” and the “0” are equal, and neither exist. 1....one direction in time, minus 1 equals 0. The whole can never be one-sided, and neither can a one-sided argument be the whole truth.

There is no other direction in time, except forward, sorry. The non-existence of nothing, proves the absolute___thanks. I'll take 1 bucket of gold over your 0 bucket of water, anytime. My gold exists, I spend it. I can't drink your 0 bucket of water, it ain't there. Last statement___No, but the whole truth is the absolute of all the parts___ain't it?

Regards,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

The best way to understand these points is to answer the question; "Can mind/spirit exist as a state of pure energy, lacking any matter motions?" Iff the mind/spirit question is answered yes, then what is this energy? One side will say it's always been, or it's manifestation, etc. But the other side will say energy is not a fundamental state, only matter in motion is, which produces all energy. Which side are you on? If you say the pure energy side, then logic must classify you as metaphysical or mystic, because science already knows different, and has for years. If you answer matter motion, then you admit to our side. Which...? If you admit to our side, then it's already been decided, the observer is inconsequential to the existence of the universe___it exists independently of us or any human mind.

I’m on the relativistic-energy-and-matter-are-identical side, with “pure (absolute) anything being non-existent. Savvy?

Matter in motion is inappropriate. Rather, space’s absolute velocity creates your matter/energy through photonic interactions that relatively reduces its velocity.

Space/time is inversely proportionate to light speed or, in other words, light is fragmented space-time in motion with your matter a result of that motion. Yet, the problem, and my argument, is that space-time doesn’t really exist and so indirectly neither do you nor I.

I guess I’m not a metaphysical mystic after all!

As to your logic, when one uses logic, it must be logical to others, or it is seen as illogical or metaphysical. The laws of finite logic must be followed to be logical to others. Logic can only be interpreted logical, iff finite, or based on the finite realities...

If something exists, Lloyd, half of it exists, forever! It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that one out. Yet, I understand why you would argue observable physical properties, because basically your logic is bound by sensory impulse in lieu of common sense.

My logic is sound to some and not to others, just like everybody else’s.

BTW, in following the “up-to-date” physics you advocate, and following Einstein’s GR, you are neglecting to put all the pieces together for yourself and are neglecting Einstein’s SR and fractional quanta. Whereby the centripetal forces of opposite fractional charges of infinitesimal particles are responsible for bonding and gravity.

You, would view macroscopic objects as having something so absurd as rest mass; or moving without acknowledging its relativistic internal movement responsible for observable motion. And further, at the absolute point, that there is no room for movement because those infinitesimal particles are illusory fragments of the space-time fabric which doesn’t really exist!

It’s also known as an illusion…a creation of the subconscious in order for you to feel real.

[N0B0DY]

So, since there's no matter and energy, what are you? A mystic ghost, with superluminal powers of another dimension? How are you writing on this page if you don't exist? Because, if matter and energy don't exist, you don't exist___and that's finite logic.

We’re having problems again, Lloyd. Matter, energy, you and I DO exist, but not really (absolutely). We relatively exist to other relative phenomena, and relativity is an illusion of the mind. It ain’t real!

And this solves the seeming paradox of “why there is something instead of nothing.” Relativity is responsible for an infinite number of random interactions and reactions to those interactions, of which this “reality” is but one of many scenarios. What, you think this reality is the only one, Lloyd? Perhaps you might because this is the one you’re existing in at this particular time. But what is time after all, Lloyd?

Here's a way to answer you with one of your own points from another post. Let's take the rod example. Let the rod be 100 million light years long. Turn end a and it will take 100 million years for end b to turn, providing light can travel at c through a steel rod. Of course, we know it would, in reality, travel slower, due to matter and mass density.

This is what I mean, Lloyd. You are talking “c” travelling - being absorbed and re-emitted incrementally which greatly reduces its velocity. We’re supposed to be talking absolute density, not relative density, remember? You’re talking a ripple crossing a pond, but I’m referring to a frozen sheet of ice. Both ends would then move simultaneously regardless of distance.

[N0B0DY]

A true absolute vacuum has been figured by probability math, of actions at .1mk, to have little more effect on c at absolute 0K. We reached .1mk above absolute zero as long ago as 1935, with he. Recent experiments have taken it lower still with rubidium gas and he^2, so that theory goes out the window. Infinite c in an absolute vacuum is pure mysticism, and at best, extreme exaggeration.

And you base your conclusion by having observed “c” at almost 0 which proves my point that you neglect fractional quanta. You are essentially proclaiming that a cake exists without its ingredients which is highly illogical.

Again, size is of no consequence when debating the infinite, agreed, only the finite. Logically, an electron is the same size as the observable universe when we compare it to an infinitely smaller point - not to argue that an electron is not a point. As a result, “c” is infinitely reduced in speed proportionately, acknowledging 0.00000000000006.

If there's room inside an h-bomb to move, I guess we don't have to worry about the emmense space of the universe, now do WE?

Yes we do because there is no such thing as emmense space, or any space at all for that matter. The h-bomb and your hammer, along with the head you wish to whack it with, are the result of the subconscious being bound by the relative laws of physics of this universe.

Every absolute point of and within the h-bomb, of and within the hammer, of and within the head, is the same non-dimensional point. The effects being an illusory manifestation based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle whereby the subconscious recognizes two “fermions” attempting to occupy the same quantum state. Hence, the effect is sensed. But what really is a fermion, other than a bunch of bosons, Lloyd?

There is no other direction in time, except forward, sorry. The non-existence of nothing, proves the absolute___thanks. I'll take 1 bucket of gold over your 0 bucket of water, anytime. My gold exists, I spend it. I can't drink your 0 bucket of water, it ain't there. Last statement___No, but the whole truth is the absolute of all the parts___ain't it?

And the absolute whole of all the parts doesn’t and can’t exist. Notice how you have to add something to the one - bucket of gold. That’s cheating, Lloyd. There is no bucket or gold. Only 1(?)…nothing.

As for the time, be reasonable. Do you not know what an antiparticle is? You’re simply stuck in a one-sided argument with yourself, because frankly you seem to just gloss over my infinite mystical hocus pocus with your finite knowledge.

I’m going back to sleep, yesterday…

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You've been asleep many yesterdays___good-day___mystic child...

regards,

[N0B0DY]

Good day, Lloyd...Nidra.

[N0B0DY]

An interesting article I found. Thought you all might wish to take a gander.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...08/99-hau.html

Have a great day!

[Eric]

Most excellent Nobody. Thanks.