T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

indeterminate is anything, the number 0/0 or 0*0, which represents any value between defined and undefined.

Like I said before, POK, I'm not offended because there isn't anything wrong with my calculations. I know what you mean, but you are not seeing that the result is the same - the 1/0 and 0/1 are the perspectives noted above - they don't really exist. So if we focus on the 0/0, we can see that the infinite existence of relative phenomena is represented by 0/0 which would represent the normal conception of "1" infinity or "everything" - never reaching 1/0 or 0/1.

How does this relate to time?
0 represents the 0th hour also known as the big bang - when time started moving forward. 1/0 represents the final hour that is the reciprocal of the big bang - when time will start moving backward. 0/0 is all the time in between. By combining quantum mechanics and general relativity you can intuitively see that the final hour will happen when expansion of the universe has gotten so strong that two points seperated by a planck distance begin receding away from eachother at greater than the speed of light.

Spatial points receding away from each other at greater than the speed of light is what inflationary theory is based on. The 0th hour would be the non-existent point before the big bang, which could not have occurred because the electromagnetic force would have to be infinite, and the final hour would never occur because the gravitational force would have to be infinite.

[N0B0DY]

Nobody, FP is using sound and thoroughly reasoned logic, just as I am. Where's your real and true, sound logic? I think just as FP mentioned, many are lost in the simple linguistics puzzle___This is exactly what we must rectify___First...

I agree, Lloyd....first. Proclaiming infinitesimal, all linguistics aside, means to any logical person a neverending progression - call it the processionary evolution of relativity.

So to say that there is a point where the infinitesimal reaches a boundary with no other place to go but out is clearly a logical fallacy. I.e., illogical.

Man, you amaze me.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Nobody, you're still just simply confusing, and being confused by, your own linguistics' interpretations and mis-understandings. The main problem is always, trying to understand how "The One" can produce the "Many"___The infinite many___always, eternally!!!

The scalar in-waves, from 0k infinite fundamental substance, are the absolute foundation of the universe___This is what the space and motion site leaves out___the very fundamental matter foundation of all waves.

It leaves it out because it doesn't exist, Lloyd. [Nobody, don't you realize yet, it's just plain "Stupid", to state everything from nothing, or absolutely nothing exists? I know why you're doing this, It's fun to play this game, the trouble is, I think you actually believe your own BS.] He's quite a bright star that fellow, although I disagree with his proclamation of absolutes. [He's actually a weak subjective metaphysicist, whom I actually backed, for a while, just because of his absolutes. I no longer endorse him.]

Do you see what you did here, Lloyd: "from 0k infinite fundamental substance, are the absolute foundation of the universe"

0k infinite substance? Are you serious, man? If it's zero k it doesn't exist, and if it's infinite it keeps on going forever and ever without a false sense of ground-state limit to create your out waves. [Your false interpretations___not mine.] Out waves are created from centrifugal motion, and in waves from centripetal motion; both keep on going forever. [Both keep on going forever___true___but, the centrifugal, centrifusal, centrifical, centripetal and all other such motions, are involved in both true in and out waves___From cold fusion to hot fusion___It's all thermo-hydro-dynamics___In then out___Eternally/infinitely.] The standing waves, what you wish to call absolute matter [Which they truly are.] for some reason, are amplitude measurements and are logically infinite in number eventhough most are undetectable - you are observing a very small fraction - and it renders all waves relativistic as well as abstract when parity, time and charge are reversed. [You lose these abstract electrodynamic and relativity terms of parity, time and charge, and maybe you could start to see the true mechanics of FS, before all the modern physics BS polluted the cosmic sea.]

Photons are an amplitude phenomenon, a peak and a valley cancellation [Sorry, nothing cancels in the real absolute universe___all things just simply change states of fundamental matter.] of the absolute kind meaning they don't exist, and are prime because they/it never changes. [Never changes means no universe___No wonder you think the false way you do. Hey, someone forget to tell ya___We're here!!!] Only the EM waves carrying energy in infinite degrees create particles. The "photons don't move at all. [Yeah sure, EM waves function without photons___I don't think so!!! EM waves move fundamental substance photons, or there'd be no visible universe___Not all of em, but enough to create finiteness. What do you think the energy is in EM waves, if not the photonic fundamental substance? It's gotta be something___I'll take photonic substance, thank you... You're wrong again, Nobody.]

Nobody, this is just the typical religious statement___True scientists don't accept any form of fundamental creation___The 1st law of thermodynamics is quite sound, in this respect___All in the universe has always been here___fundamentally, eternally. There are absolutely no paradoxes possible, except those seemingly stating them so___Check your premises, one of them is wrong___Very Wrong. Nature paradoxes, not one thing in the entire universe___Never!!!

This is the typical scientist response I mentioned in my previous post: "True scientists don't accept any form of fundamental creation___The 1st law of thermodynamics is quite sound, in this respect___All in the universe has always been here___fundamentally, eternally."

Although you left out, "just because." [No, I'm not stupid enough to look for a fundamental creator___I absolutely know, there ain't one___It ain't possible.] It creates an unavoidable paradox for you, Lloyd, and there is no escaping it because infinity goes on forever, "The Eternal Return." [And what's wrong with the eternal return___That's exactly what I've stated many times before.] No matter which way you twist it, when you claim an eternal existence "just because" you will always be forced to carry the baggage of explaining your way out of "there is no outside." [Maybe you do, I don't have any problem with foolish ideas of such___It's simple illogical nonsense. Nobody, it's all infinite eternal absolute fundamental substance. You're just simply playing linguistics, either knowingly or un-knowingly.]

There is no outside to most sane people means just that, and that means you are placing what you claim absolutely exists within that which absolutely doesn't. [Oh, nice word twist___just as I mentioned above___It's your personal linguistics nightmare___private languages are not allowed in science. We use an openly understood language, and abide by its laws and logics.]

Alternatively, again, if we claim that things relatively exist as a reduction in absolute speed, then the paradox dissolves. [No, this creates your false paradox, just by using a false definition of absolute speed. There are two definitions of absolute speed; 1.Velocity, 2.Quantity___you must qualify, for your statement to have any meaning. BTW, as to quantity, motion is absolute speed, less velocity___as it's all the motion in the universe___from the slowest motions to the fastest true C.] The site you provided was quite good actually, it explained how zero is beyond infinity. [No, it did not. It stated a symmetrical math where zero could be substituted for infinity, in an entirely new system of a simpler mathematical understanding of the universe, less the two sides exaggerations.] The only possible way for two points to become one, two poles to become one non-existent monopole while producing the myriad dipoles of which is observed in part. [It didn't state this either___You have confused the linguistics again, with pure nonsense. Nobody, you won't win your zen points with theocratic thinking nonsense.]

You are taking no speed to represent no speed, instead of allowing it to reduce space to zero. [No space ever reduces to absolute zero___That is stupid logic.] The result is the same, but the difference is that space and time are not viewed as absolute; the absolute remains static/non-existent always. [The absolute is always both static and moving___It absolutely has to be, or your universe is coming straight out of comic books.] Meaning we're not just putting literal things in places that don't exist. [Then, why's that all you keep doing?]

Your reality is a dream made real by your subconscious mind governing subatomic "particles" according to only one particular set of laws of physics - and a small set to boot. [Ahhhh...Everything I state is completely within all the laws of physics and nature. Most everything you state, is mostly outside all laws of physics, nature and common sense. "Nothing" outside of everything, is a comic joke.]

You have the abstract on the wrong foot, tis your's, not mine. Did you forget, I'm the one advocating the absolute substances of the real fundamental universe? Where you confuse yourself, is with the Eastern philosophies, of the nothing real fallacy. Take a look at the real world, directly in front of your eyes___It just happens to be real, fundamental and absolute___period.

It just so happens? Things just happen because, Lloyd? [If you'd truly study the laws of physics, you'd realize they require it, not I. Try an integral study of all the laws of the universe, not just your own chosen pet few.] It has nothing to do with Eastern philosophy, but with general logic extending relevant information to draw logical conclusions. [I truly wish, that's what you really did know how to do.]

Humans can read monitor screens and bang hammers, but the universe isn't human, or is it? [According to what part of the universe you're talking about. My human universe is truly human, but the greater mechanical universe hardly qualifies.] To the absolute universe, then, there are no such things and to claim otherwise is to claim that you have an in on every working of the universe. [And, what if I do, at least, have much more than others?]

No amount of your ludicrous mythology can change the facts of reality___It's real, always has been real, and always will be real, and fundamental. You just don't understand the actual mechanics of matter/mass/motion within matter/mass/motion___within the greater matter stationarity.

No, you're right. I don't understand the mechanics of matter/mass/motion within fundamental real matter/mass/motion that exists "just because" you tell me it does. [No, not I, tis the laws of physics that tell you these facts, if you'd but pay attention, to the physical symmetry of all the laws of the universe, you may start to understand.]

Motion requires space, like for your hand to literally/absolutely move from the left to the right, but you're going to tell me that you truly believe that your hand is moving closer to the left or right of the entire universe? [Of course, I'd be a fool, not to.] No, because there is no edge to the universe, right? [Wrong again___your's and others foolish conjecture.] So then your hand must be recreated along an infinite number of non-dimensional points according to the amplitude necessary for the particles of your hand to be created. [You better study a bit more biology and chemistry, on this one. I think you'll be presently embarassed.] So the motion and your hand is an abstract light show. [No light show___absolute matter in motion___always. You keep forgetting, matter changes states from matter to matter.] Where you will say, if I hit you in the head with my absolute hammer, you're gonna feel it. [True enough.] Which is another kind of light show based on the subconscious following the pauli exclusion principle of not allowing you to literally put a particle in a place that isn't there. [Yeah, you keep believing foolishness like that. Storms exist inside storms, you know?] The pain and the blood are signs telling you that you're trying to do the impossible [Wrong again___Real matter in motion within motion, again.] - hence the relative display of new amplitudes that never become absolute no matter how deep you go into the particles of hammer, blood, bones or whatever else you wish to dream up. [You better get your fundamental physics straight, Nobody___All amplitudes/energies/frequencies of all waves, are absolute matter in motion___Time to wake up!!!]

Your ground state is rounded off quite a bit too, to fit empirical and theoretical physics, and I haven't left out the universe's changing abilities, Lloyd. I've left out the absolute universe's changing abilities because the absolute universe doesn't exist and renders change an impossibility. [Yeah, according to your mythology, again. Most people are smart enough to figure out the universe is real, in case you don't know that, Nobody.]

The absolute, again, is like a blank slate that never changes. [Only part of it. The rest has to change states, by the laws of physics, to form any universal action___at all!] Only the infinite number of pixels and pictures change "because" they are based on the infinite number of changes in amplitude which are potential states of non-dimensional points, which in turn are really no points at all. [You know, my first wife had a pointed head, so I divorced her, too. How'd you like to be hit with my 160# bow, and its 32" arrow, tipped with a razor sharp broadhead point?___Do you think it might be real? Come on Nobody, relativity is really quite stupid, compared to real absolute matter in motion, at all matter and energy levels___absolutely all state changing levels.]

Yeah, and I'm "Jack the Ripper", too...

Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You're still caught in the false linguistics, Nobody. You see, you keep using abstract mathematical definitions of linguistics, which just happens to throw you way off base to what is truly being discussed. Here's the many definitions; stop thinking there's only your's:
–adjective 1.indefinitely or exceedingly small; minute: infinitesimal vessels in the circulatory system. 2.immeasurably small; less than an assignable quantity: to an infinitesimal degree. 3.of, pertaining to, or involving infinitesimals. –noun 4.an infinitesimal quantity. 5.Mathematics. a variable having zero as a limit. adj.

1. Immeasurably or incalculably minute.
2. Mathematics Capable of having values approaching zero as a limit.

n.

1. An immeasurably or incalculably minute amount or quantity.
2. Mathematics A function or variable continuously approaching zero as a limit.

You can look up more of them, if you want to Nobody, but you can't confine linguistics to your private conjectured interpretations. Infinitesimal, as I am using it, means just as I stated, "Infinitesimally small until it joins with the infinitesimal size of the absolute fundamental substance." Sorry, but there is no logical problem with my reasoning. You can't win linguistic arguments, when you don't thoroughly understand linguistics.

Lloyd

Nobody, FP is using sound and thoroughly reasoned logic, just as I am. Where's your real and true, sound logic? I think just as FP mentioned, many are lost in the simple linguistics puzzle___This is exactly what we must rectify___First...

I agree, Lloyd....first. Proclaiming infinitesimal, all linguistics aside, means to any logical person a neverending progression - call it the processionary evolution of relativity.

So to say that there is a point where the infinitesimal reaches a boundary with no other place to go but out is clearly a logical fallacy. I.e., illogical. [No, there's no logical fallacy. It's just your mis-interpretations.]

Man, you amaze me.

Yeah, I know, I amaze myself, also...

Just me

[Fluent Piffle]

Reality will be whatever it will be, regardless of which Humans agree or disagree. I'm sure there are an equally infinite number of sounds we can make with our throats, give personal meaning to by applying emotion, invent symbols for, and attempt to convince others of our original and personally unique meaning with them. It is what is being described that is important, not the intermediate tools which we invent to describe it.

You can either clarify it for yourself, or still have 'problems'. I'm not trying to force my opinion. It doesn't matter.

It was you, 'NOBODY', who posted the link to the site with the closest description of physical reality I have yet found. All I can say is that it very closely mirrors the reality I have observed for myself.

No two people share identical experiences, so we must all draw our own conclusions, if indeed we honestly seek such. For my part, I cannot conceive of a reality that is not also 'true', and if it is true then it can be only one thing, as reality must also be the original 'thing'; One physical truth - with infinite perspectives.

'Emptiness', 'nothing', the 'absolute', etc, all these things are human concepts based around false understandings of the past, and thus they have no relevance as part of a reality that must be true.


You will also find quite an extensive correlation with earlier writings, as these people were also trying to describe what they observed, with as much honesty as they could muster in their day. My guess is that Humans needed to evolve 'science' in order to prove/disprove what was being stated. And it is doing both!

If we dig deep enough, we will find the truth. When we put obstacles in our own ways, we never can.

pif.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

For example, if you consider the fractal nature of universal phenomena, the causes and effects responsible for creating an observable shape must be shared infinitesimally eventhough the infinitesimal is unobservable. By definition, an exact fractal has to keep the exact shape regardless of scale, and a whole new theory of the direct result of universal design on biology can be realized - inexact fractals create biological mutations which is the basis of evolution. Everything ties into a basic universal design of infinite potential, because the central point/source of potential existence is non-structured.

I completely agree with this paragraph, Nobody...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Nobody, don't you realize yet, it's just plain "Stupid", to state everything from nothing, or absolutely nothing exists? I know why you're doing this, It's fun to play this game, the trouble is, I think you actually believe your own BS.

I do believe it, Lloyd, but don't believe it is BS. For the most part because I'm not stating what you think I'm stating. I don't believe everything from nothing, or that nothing exists. I'm stating that nothing doesn't exist, and that's one of the reasons I started these discussions 5 years ago on the net. That, and to help an old friend finally get a proper answer to his "kindergarten" question of what is on the outside of the universe. Of which scientists, religionists, and philosophers failed miserably, insulted us, or ignored us altogether.

The closest someone came to making sense of it, imo, was by suggesting that there was more space on the outside infinitely. Makes sense because we all need room to breathe, right? Yet, what is on the outside of that infinite space? There is nothing on the outside of that space, so the explanations always crumble when we attempt to put literal things - even space - within non-existence.

In then out___Eternally/infinitely.

In then out? Why in then out, Lloyd? See how that is contradictory? If you are going to proclaim a finite substance with boundaries, fine, but when you say 0k infinite substance (which doesn't make sense to begin with) with in and out waves going on forever, it defies what you are stating. So either the in waves go on forever, as well as the out waves, or they don't. Again, infinitely going in and THEN going out doesn't make a damn bit of sense, because when is THEN if it's supposed to go on forever? Know what I mean now, Lloyd, or am I spewing more mythology?

Never changes means no universe___No wonder you think the false way you do. Hey, someone forget to tell ya___We're here!!!

Where is "here" exactly, Lloyd? To you here is on earth within the solar system within the galaxy within the galaxy clusters, but to the "absolute" universe where could "here" actually be? I think you're "really" caught up in your own illusory time and space.

Yeah sure, EM waves function without photons___I don't think so!!! EM waves move fundamental substance photons, or there'd be no visible universe___Not all of em, but enough to create finiteness. What do you think the energy is in EM waves, if not the photonic fundamental substance? It's gotta be something___I'll take photonic substance, thank you.

Exactly, Lloyd. You can take the effectual photonic information, but not the photons. The photons are like static amplitude storage spaces of synchronized peak and valley "waves." So what you're observing is an abstract refraction of waves due to the various amplitudes within a very small spectrum, and since the medium for EM waves are static photons, they aren't affected in any way. It is an abstract light show created from a reduction in absolute speed that creates infinitesimal in waves, out waves, and standing waves - like static snap shots taken with the brain camera and referred to as "particles." So the waves can't move much of anything, let alone fundamental substance photons that don't exist.

No, I'm not stupid enough to look for a fundamental creator___I absolutely know, there ain't one___It ain't possible.

Another reason I start these discussions is to try to make peace between the religious and scientific communities. There can be both a Creator and not, when the Creator is equated to nothing divided by nothing to create a dream made real via the subconscious mind according to a particular DNA structure that interprets particular variables as substantial. So we can all be happy campers, Lloyd!

Nobody, it's all infinite eternal absolute fundamental substance. You're just simply playing linguistics, either knowingly or un-knowingly.

Infinite and absolute are very different, Lloyd, but you seem to think otherwise which is non-sequitur, imo. Infinite keeps going, and is not all-inclusive; whereas the absolute doesn't go anywhere, and IS all-inclusive.

No, this creates your false paradox, just by using a false definition of absolute speed. There are two definitions of absolute speed; 1.Velocity, 2.Quantity___you must qualify, for your statement to have any meaning. BTW, as to quantity, motion is absolute speed, less velocity___as it's all the motion in the universe___from the slowest motions to the fastest true C.

I don't disagree with you here, except that c is only as true as it can be. The absolute includes speeds all the way up to instantaneous, of which are far greater than 300 km/s.

No, it did not. It stated a symmetrical math where zero could be substituted for infinity, in an entirely new system of a simpler mathematical understanding of the universe, less the two sides exaggerations.

Like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 and its counterfraction. We may as well say zero and have it represent the infinitesimal, right? This is why I stated that it more less supported my thinking, Lloyd. 0/0 represents 1/infinity. Two absolute poles that are never reached, with an infinite number of fractions between, and inclusive of negative counterparts that cancel positive to zero as a whole.

We're making progress, Lloyd!

No space ever reduces to absolute zero___That is stupid logic.

No, not your space, but the absolute space does because h is inversely proportionate to c. As noted above, exceeding c decreases h - instantaneous is synonymous to t zero.

The absolute is always both static and moving___It absolutely has to be, or your universe is coming straight out of comic books.

I'd like to agree with you here again, Lloyd, but I'm afraid that you might mean some objects move and some don't. So, perhaps you can elaborate a bit on your interpretation of a static and moving universe.

Ahhhh...Everything I state is completely within all the laws of physics and nature. Most everything you state, is mostly outside all laws of physics, nature and common sense. "Nothing" outside of everything, is a comic joke.

So you're saying that everything outside of everything isn't damn hilarious? Or, no, actually you said the same as above, didn't you, honestly?....There is no outside were your words I believe, which means there is nothing outside of everything. See? I never said "nothing outside of everything." You did and you yourself are calling it a comic joke. So how logical is that, Lloyd?

If you'd truly study the laws of physics, you'd realize they require it, not I. Try an integral study of all the laws of the universe, not just your own chosen pet few.

I've study more than the laws of the universe for quite a while, Lloyd, and prefer that which extends those laws in order to correct false assumptions based on irrelevant observations and theoretical physics.

According to what part of the universe you're talking about. My human universe is truly human, but the greater mechanical universe hardly qualifies.

Yes, I'm talking about the "greater" mechanical universe....asked and answered to support the topic of this thread. Thank you.

You know, my first wife had a pointed head, so I divorced her, too. How'd you like to be hit with my 160# bow, and its 32" arrow, tipped with a razor sharp broadhead point?___Do you think it might be real? Come on Nobody, relativity is really quite stupid, compared to real absolute matter in motion, at all matter and energy levels___absolutely all state changing levels.

Sorry, I had to snip out the rest to avoid repetition, but this here if you can explain to us why exactly I would feel it, you might get a glimpse of what truly goes on in your mind and know what I'm talking about.

[N0B0DY]

'Emptiness', 'nothing', the 'absolute', etc, all these things are human concepts based around false understandings of the past, and thus they have no relevance as part of a reality that must be true.

I couldn't agree more, pif. Although I'm going to wait for Lloyd to surprise me with his response into the absolute inner working of the mind before I suggest another word for "true" when referring to reality. To me, it's a dream made real by the subconscious mind that governs this particular reality.

[N0B0DY]

Infinitesimal, as I am using it, means just as I stated, "Infinitesimally small until it joins with the infinitesimal size of the absolute fundamental substance." Sorry, but there is no logical problem with my reasoning. You can't win linguistic arguments, when you don't thoroughly understand linguistics.

Just one more thing, Lloyd. Does half of that infinitesimal size of the absolute substance exist, or does it stop there?

[purveyor of knowledge]

I would not lie to you.

You cannot get from this equation
everything=1/0
to this equation
everything*1=0

unless you make an algebraic error

also 0/0 and 0*0 are the same thing

I should know, I scored %99 for math on the ACT. I'm not trying to brag, I'm just telling you so that you know. I would expect somebody to do the same for me in the event that I make a mistake as we are all human - even the purveyor of knowledge.

sincerely, POK