[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I suggest that you start your own thread to express your issues or express them in a thread that is more suitable to your taste, pif. This thread is based on my own personal experiences and studies, and is here for those who wish to take a few things from it, as I do with others. I am the first to admit that it is not a normal theory, but a statement declaring there can be no literal absolutes; and no existence of nothingness relative to things, as is the case with motion.

I spent almost three years at the spaceandmotion site, and there isn't/wasn't any mention of where the out waves come from. So I emailed Mr. Haselhurst and aksed him to explain it to me, and he responded that the out waves from other universes create the in waves of this universe. Needless to say I wasn't satisfied with that response because it didn't answer my question, and the reason imo is due to what you dislike about this thread. That the absolute state is broken into zero-dimensional centers which serve as the basis for dimensional extensions.

When I claim that motion is impossible and the universe, or cosmos, doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that things aren't moving about in apparent motion to observers, but that the universe as a whole cannot be like an earthly observer with eyes and a brain, and therefore things and motion, time and space can't exist from what would be that absolute perspective. Without any verification required, it is as easy to infer such an absolute as it is to infer with verification a relative instance of the impossiblity of doing a headstand in outer space - which way would you turn? No matter which way you would position yourself, you would and wouldn't be doing a headstand. And I agree that such a case is absurd, but as counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is nevertheless the absolute state of relative frameworks not existing at all. You would only be able to do a headstand relative to a point of reference.

As for all being ascertained through a deductive means, if we really think this one through, pif, it should be fairly easy to see why I infer sensory reality is an illusory abstraction.

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

The term 'Universe' was also a sticking point for me. I realised that I had only a sketchy idea of what 'Universe' means, based almost entirely on what other sources had inferred to me. We know that current 'models' are all speculative, at best, so it seemed kind of illogical that I should adopt one of these 'wrong' models! It also seemed to me that it must be possible to understand whatever this entity I am, is, and how it exists. This, I discovered later, was quite a break-through, just to think that it might be possible, as a large amount of others I have encountered seemed to think it was not. Perhaps I am attracted to your thread because you at least seem to understand this much?

In/out waves are not two 'separate' or 'distinct' motions of Space. They are, in fact, the same motion. If you are looking for a sole 'out-wave' you will never find one. It doesn't work like that.

I have added a few things to my own understanding of WSM, which are not currently 'on show' at the website, so I don't even know if my thoughts correlate with the originators' any more. In order for WSM to be correct, certain other aspects must also be necessary, primes among these are our current 'cultural/collective' understandings of the terms 'Universe' and 'Infinite'. It is my current understanding that the 'Universe' is a term we use for, 'that which we have so far been able to observe/measure', and thus, as our observations expand, we incorrectly perceive this as the 'Universe' itself, which is 'physically expanding', where it is actually our awareness of what exists that is truly expanding. Perhaps this truly corresponds to Human 'consciousness' expanding? Regardless, consequently, we invent 'theories' that correspond to our erroneous 'physical' beliefs, but this is an error only because we still have the nasty habit of seeing the 'observer' as something 'separate' from the observed. There is only the act of observation, and it only takes place when it is taking place!

In an Infinite 3d Space, there is no such thing as 'outside'. Therefore, the mechanism that makes existence do the things we observe it doing has no 'exterior' source. For all intents and purposes, it must be the One thing that exists in an 'absolute' state.

As for all being ascertained through a deductive means, if we really think this one through, pif, it should be fairly easy to see why I infer sensory reality is an illusory abstraction.

'Ascertain', 'deduce', 'think', 'see', 'infer', 'illusory', 'abstraction'. So many words, only one meaning.

...you would and wouldn't be doing a headstand. And I agree that such a case is absurd

It only seems 'absurd' because we have conditioned ourselves to think that two 'options' at the same time cannot be 'possible'. But what if it is? We have had to evolve a 'finite' thinking existence, in order to survive in the physical world, but now we are steering our gaze toward the Cosmos, we may have to adjust our thinking to Cosmological 'absurdity', in order to understand it.




pif.

[N0B0DY]

"In/out waves are not two 'separate' or 'distinct' motions of Space. They are, in fact, the same motion. If you are looking for a sole 'out-wave' you will never find one. It doesn't work like that."

I think it is the only way that it can work, pif, because there has to be a common center - at the center of a finite model - for the mechanics to work. I understand that the inward and outward motions are the same, but in an infinite model with no common center, as in WSM, all of the waves cancel even if we allow them to pass through each other because the intersecting point of the waves - if you envision the Huygens effect depicted on Geoff's site - unifies the two relative reference frames into an absolute frame that has been proven impossible to exist. It's like jumping up and down: as you reach the maximum extent upwards, there is an absolute point where there is neither upward nor downward motion before the downward motion begins, and this point negates motion; we can propose that there is a circular motion, but in an infinite model the motion is omni-directional - every which way - and the absolute point then applies simultaneously in all directions.

"It is my current understanding that the 'Universe' is a term we use for, 'that which we have so far been able to observe/measure', and thus, as our observations expand, we incorrectly perceive this as the 'Universe' itself, which is 'physically expanding', where it is actually our awareness of what exists that is truly expanding. Perhaps this truly corresponds to Human 'consciousness' expanding? Regardless, consequently, we invent 'theories' that correspond to our erroneous 'physical' beliefs, but this is an error only because we still have the nasty habit of seeing the 'observer' as something 'separate' from the observed. There is only the act of observation, and it only takes place when it is taking place!"

This is fair enough because consciousness is limited and can expand as technology becomes more advanced. We can even correlate the capacity with infinity, but as an absolute whole there can be no differentiation possible and consciousness is based upon relative differentials of nature. A perhaps useful analogy can be applied here regarding the difference between the time it takes for an individual to travel a certain distance on earth and the universe to travel the same distance. Even if the individual were allowed to travel at an infinite velocity, he/she would never be able to cover such a distance in a shorter timespan than the universe; and the universe wouldn't have to move at all to beat the individual.

It is understandable then to infer that what exists is the greater whole, and that observers' relative positions have nothing to do with its existence, but because what we classify as existence is based upon observation and the universe as whole transcends all relative differentials, it cannot be inferred to exist until it is observed. Yet, I think because folks underestimate the mind or can't commonly think of the means whereby the mind can create a shared reality that is even inclusive of the entirety of universal procession, it clings to the concept of an a priori existence because sensory reality is based upon past events - time extensions.

[N0B0DY]

"In an Infinite 3d Space, there is no such thing as 'outside'. Therefore, the mechanism that makes existence do the things we observe it doing has no 'exterior' source. For all intents and purposes, it must be the One thing that exists in an 'absolute' state."

I have no argument against this above, except that the age-old assessment of the one existent universe - or omniverse or cosmos - equates to my inferred none. That only relative existence is possible to observers, but once the holistic (from "hole") frame is taken into consideration, existence can be considered a misnomer.

"It only seems 'absurd' because we have conditioned ourselves to think that two 'options' at the same time cannot be 'possible'. But what if it is? We have had to evolve a 'finite' thinking existence, in order to survive in the physical world, but now we are steering our gaze toward the Cosmos, we may have to adjust our thinking to Cosmological 'absurdity', in order to understand it."

If this is absurdly true to you, as motionless is absurdly true to me, I think we can bury the hatchet because then we are only dealing with semantics here.

Ten years ago I proposed that spirituality and physicality were synonymously-conceptual forms of what is classified as real. Yet, to cite Berkeley once again: "...lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words."

[dipayankar]

Absolutely. And I also believe that if space-time can be quantised, then probably light will go from one quanta to the other (incremental quantum leaps) and might as well pick up some latent energy from enach quantum zone which will help keep its velocity constant. Just my thoughts..

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Dip,

I see what you mean now, and I think that by realizing scalars are arbitrary, scales cease to remain prevalent. To the tune that, say, planck length and planck time is identical to infinity and eternity.

What I do like about QM, though, that may be relevant to the topic is the quantum leap. I think it was Bob Campbell from this forum who gives a great explanation of such a phenomenon, and of course I adhere to it because space and time altogether cease in such instances. From this it is possible to merge Newton's and Einstein's concepts of spacetime and do away with concepts of particulate matter and warpable spacetime, which is the only way imo to merge GR and QM.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Absolutely. And I also believe that if space-time can be quantised, then probably light will go from one quanta to the other (incremental quantum leaps) and might as well pick up some latent energy from enach quantum zone which will help keep its velocity constant. Just my thoughts..

I like the way you think, Dip. I would also equate the quantum zone with newtonian spacetime, which would imply that there are no intervals between leaps. In this way we can come closer to merging both spacetimes because the quantum zones naturally contain much more energy than the concentric systems.

[Fluent Piffle]

If this is absurdly true to you, as motionless is absurdly true to me, I think we can bury the hatchet because then we are only dealing with semantics here.

The very problem that Lloyd and myself tried to point out to you about half-a-million pages ago!

Not to worry, if you have a hatchet to bury, I won't stand in your way.



Infinite finiteness, seems like an 'absurdity', but the more likely Reality is that it is US who are being 'Cosmologically absurd' by insisting on one 'preferred' state over the 'other'.




pif.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

It only seems 'absurd' because we have conditioned ourselves to think that two 'options' at the same time cannot be 'possible'. But what if it is? We have had to evolve a 'finite' thinking existence, in order to survive in the physical world, but now we are steering our gaze toward the Cosmos, we may have to adjust our thinking to Cosmological 'absurdity', in order to understand it.

pif.

Sorry, pif, are you referring to the above? "Bury the hatchet" is only an expression to say that we should agree if we both think our propositions are seemingly absurd.

[N0B0DY]

A bit of food or feast for thought regarding quantime:

"Physical laws are, in general, laws of motion, of change from one time to another. They represent change in the form of differential equations for the evolution of, as the case may be, classical or quantum states; the state represents the way the system is at some time, and the laws allow one to predict how it will be in the future (or retrodict how it was in the past).

"It is not surprising, then, that a theory of quantum spacetime would have a problem of time, because there is no classical time against which to evolve the “state”. The problem is not so much that the spacetime is dynamical; there is no problem of time in classical general relativity. Rather, the problem is roughly that in quantizing the structure of spacetime itself, the notion of a quantum state, representing the structure of spacetime at some instant, and the notion of the evolution of the state, do not get any traction, since there are no real “instants”. (In some approaches to canonical gravity, one fixes a time before quantizing, and quantizes the spatial portions of the metric only. This approach is not without its problems, however; see Isham (1993) for discussion and further references.)"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qu...gravity/#4.2.2

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Sorry, pif, are you referring to the above? "Bury the hatchet" is only an expression to say that we should agree if we both think our propositions are seemingly absurd.

Nob, if you have 'hatchets', by all means feel free to bury them! (With a bit of luck, you may even be able to teach your 'friends' how to do the same!)



Shall we concentrate on the topic...?

I am saying that the 'seemingly absurd' is not Cosmologically absurd. I have been discussing the Cosmology, and trying to understand why we are seeing it as 'absurd', when that may just be 'normal', in Cosmological terms. Do you not see how this juxtaposition is relevant to the in/out wave scenario? - Two superficially 'absurd' 'opposites', actually being aspects of the same one thing?



pif.

[Drifter]

The shark likes to strike his prey from nowhere.
More inuendos and going for the player. You sir are a FOOL, albeit an Educated one.
[nearly all of your "half-million posts" are laced with this type poison]
Nobody has kindly ask you to leave and moderators have warned you repeatedly yet you persist to no end?
<offensive remarks removed by neutralino>

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle

Nob, if you have 'hatchets', by all means feel free to bury them! (With a bit of luck, you may even be able to teach your 'friends' how to do the same!)



Shall we concentrate on the topic...?

I am saying that the 'seemingly absurd' is not Cosmologically absurd. I have been discussing the Cosmology, and trying to understand why we are seeing it as 'absurd', when that may just be 'normal', in Cosmological terms. Do you not see how this juxtaposition is relevant to the in/out wave scenario? - Two superficially 'absurd' 'opposites', actually being aspects of the same one thing?



pif.