T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Fluent Piffle]

I can only suggest that people do not give more power to each others' confusion. What a waste, when you could be using the same energy to your own advantage! We all have the 'right' to discover life and existence for ourselves, and our own unique perspectives are just as valid as anyone/thing else's. If we are trying to describe (and therefore agree on) the necessary working of existence from an objective point of view, we have to allow for a 'theory' that encompasses ALL perspectives. An 'infinite' perspective, that is actually One entire existence, is the only conclusion that can be drawn, given the above criterion. Then it just remains to discover how it does what it does.

Just find out for yourselves. Decipher what you can and be happy with it! Because if greater knowledge does not bring greater happiness, what is the point of it? Are we doing this just to further confuse each other, for some ulterior (personal) motive? Or do we seriously want to know the truth of anything?


pif.

[purveyor of knowledge]

Well said brother. There is no greater perspective than to see the undivided whole. We must appreciate it's definition with the absolute greatest value, and that is a VERY big number

[N0B0DY]

POK,

The absolute and infinite can't mix. I made a point to mention that in message 1, because the "1" has to be divided by an infinite number of measurements in order to result in an infinite number of fractions.

Of course we can round off infinity to zero and have it represent it, but that wouldn't be the truth, would it? 0 is the absolute, it doesn't exist - it stops; and infinity by anyone's standard I would think keeps going.

So, again, I know what you mean, but the use of the equations are inapplicable is the point. It's not like we're talking about E=mc2, contextually 1/0 is an infinite error. There is no biggest number or smallest fraction, except if we wish to call zero the smallest and 1 the biggest, but why would seekers of the truth wish to do that?

pif,

For me, it leads to the gateway that is unaffected by the workings of the subconscious/subatomic. The truth is infinitely deep because the functioning is infinitesimal.

If I'm not mistaken, Lloyd is expressing an infinitesimal point of condensed matter that reaches a point where there is nowhere to go and it has to go out at that point. It is finite, though, as I remember him mentioning that a few times, but exists absolutely within infinite space.

Yeah, if you're very serious about seeking the truth, consider how impossible this other description of universal functioning: space was static, which is synonymous to nothing at all because there is no movement possible, and "then" space expanded "everywhere" - which is no problem because once it starts moving, infinitely static whatever becomes infinite space - whereby the process of particle creation takes place once the universe reaches the "point" where it cools.

Or, motion always existed, but where is space or all them particles moving? There would be so much bloody pressure that movement would be impossible; and besides that there would be no "where" in particular.

I think First Philosophy should come first if people are serious about seeking the truth, because observations are misleading and a new math is required to understand universal functioning. The math site that Lloyd provided might come close, but that is like saying near absolute zero k is absolute, which is not the truth and I'm sure you know how far from it it is.

[N0B0DY]

If we are trying to describe (and therefore agree on) the necessary working of existence from an objective point of view, we have to allow for a 'theory' that encompasses ALL perspectives.

And people are telling me to get real. Are you joking about this here, pif? Especially in such an imbalanced world such as this. How about the popular gravity, what exactly is it objectively?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, we keep going, we may be able to eliminate all people's errors of linguistics and understanding, but I think first philosophy must first respect the entire symmetry of all the universes physical mechanical laws, Don't you? By this, I would first re-state the 1st law of conservation of matter and energy, must apply equally to all state changes of fundamental substance. Since this 1st law allows, and accounts, for all universal changes, these changes absolutely must exist, or you are denying the applicability of the 1st law, not to mention all the others. If matter and energy are always conserved, which I think we both agree, then the state changes of FS are always conserved also, thus preserving all the real motions in the real infinite/finite universe, from first motions, to the motions in our brains and vehicles of all finiteness. This you can't get out of by trying to falsely state absolute and infinite are not the same, which they actually are, usually, and in my use, are___and also trying to continue your falsely loaded question of; "What's outside of everything", when every physical and natural law requires all to be of and in the one___One is One to eternity, by all the laws of the universe. Your false first philosophy can not state change this physical fact___Ever!

Now, I'll ponder the corrected points to what you state below...

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. [You know, right here, I think you often think I'm agreeing with standard physics, when in fact my writing clearly states I'm not. As to Einstein's/Minkowsky's/DeSitter's space-time entities of a fixed finite space and void outside, or from the foolish point inside, I'm far from stating such foolishness. I clearly state that a finite matter universe exists inside an infinite matter universe___It's matter motion all the way. If you could clearly separate my ideas from theirs, you'd see more clearly what my model represents___The truest workings of our mechanical universe, in direct relationship with all the laws of physics, which their's are clearly not.]

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? [Here's where you make your greatest mistake. You first define an infinite space on the outside of infinity. Your using a double positive to create a non-existent zero/nothing space___That's illogical___It can't be done. Stop and fix your error, right here.] 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. [See, all you've done is self-create a false logic space, of non-existent nothing. Fix your false logic, and you'll see the true infinite/finite universe. You know Nobody, any child can see your false logic___Here!!!]

In then out___Eternally/infinitely.

In then out? Why in then out, Lloyd? [Because, thermo-hydro-dynamic pressure is first force___IN!!!] See how that is contradictory?[Not at all.] If you are going to proclaim a finite substance with boundaries,[I do not.] 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.[No, it only defies your false understanding.] So either the in waves go on forever, as well as the out waves, or they don't.[They do, but they change directions, from first, in to out] 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?[At the point of direction change, fool.] Know what I mean now, Lloyd, or am I spewing more mythology?[You're just spewing...]

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?[At one of the infinite center of direction changes___Where else?] 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?[Already stated___Center of Direction Intersections.] I think you're "really" caught up in your own illusory time and space.[No, just real FS motion and static states___Moving and standing waves___Real objects___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.

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.[Sorry, but you're breaking the 1st law of thermodynamics, again___All universal motion and state changes are truly conserved and equilibriated___Always.] 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."[You better redo your theoretical physics___in, out and standing waves are all absolute particle motions of the FS on up the state changing scales. This is where most physicists and theorists make their biggest mistake, as I also did for years___It's rather hard to get your head around the absolute fact, that only absolute substance/matter exists, as all energy/matter truly is. Try, you'll like it___It's the only truth possible, and still be within all the laws of the universe.] So the waves can't move much of anything, let alone fundamental substance photons that don't exist.[Your mythology shows many cracks, when compared to the necessary requirements of the symmetry of the universal laws of physics and nature. Like I said, use the laws as an integral whole, and all is much clearer. Photonic fundamental substance must move, by the laws of physics, or show me your physical law of absolute stationarity___You can't___It don't exist. The uncertainty principle is in your way, just as it is in Planet Bob's way___No absolute description of photon is possible, except the empirically known photonic substance, and packets of.]

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![Sorry, I'll never be happy, as long as religious lies exist. Creator is logically impossible___period. The laws of the mechanical universe prevent it. One either respects the laws, or dallies in the myths.]

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, my sequitur logic is fine. Tis you basing all your own logic on the non-sequitur of the impossible states, which break the natural symmetry of the universal laws of physics.]

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.[That is pure conjecture, that neither one of us can prove, although, I would say a faster C was lawfully possible and predictable, by the laws of finite universal density___Less aether density in the past, would have allowed a higher C, but not absolute C, as the absolutely required FS density would prevent it.]

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 all abstract mathematical assumption___Enter real substance and the abstract math corrects itself.] This is why I stated that it more less supported my thinking, Lloyd. 0/0 represents 1/infinity.[A moot point, I do agree with.] 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.[But here, you jump back into the purely abstract impossible___impossible, because, the laws of absolute substance, prevents its possibliliy of truth. As you've also stated___A new math is required at this level. I already offered the post about math symmetry___It works perfectly with absolute FS. Go back and put it together.]

We're making progress, Lloyd![Maybe___We're sure eliminating most of the impossibles.]

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.[Yes, but this is only applicable at the quantum level, where C varries between C and true C, only. At the fundamental substance level, h becomes infinitesimally less, and C stays at C or True C.] As noted above, exceeding c decreases h - instantaneous is synonymous to t zero.[There are no known laws or empirical evidence for exceeding C, only for an infinitesimally decreasing h. Our present aether density prevents C from being exceeded___Sorry. Nobody, you gotta deal with the real universe, not the abstract universe. Eliminate the abstractions, and you'll find the substance reality.]

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.[Absolutely!!!] So, perhaps you can elaborate a bit on your interpretation of a static and moving universe.[If a universe starts with One absolute fundamental substance, logic, and the laws of physics, requires the one to be All Moving and Static___At once! There just isn't any other possibility, so it ends being the only possibility___It thus is the highest probability___The only probability___The only absolute possiblility. You can't just leave the One, and say it's stationary, and create your own private wave moving universe, inside it___The One must be the All of the entire universe's fundamental matter/energy/motion___Always and Absolutely___This is nothing but the state change requirements of the laws of the mechanical universe, as by realizing the 1st law of Thermodynamics is also the 1st law of state changing FS motion___There's no way around it___It's the simple factual laws of the mechanical universe___All motion must exist inside of the eternal One motions and static states___The One must stand still and move, or we couldn't witness movement from a still position___Our hand wouldn't move in front of our face. All motion requires a fundamental ground state of stillness, or it simply ain't motion___period!!!]

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.[Nobody, you can't turn figure of speech into true meaning___quit trying.] See?[Yeah, I see the Zeno trickster in you.] I never said "nothing outside of everything." You did and you yourself are calling it a comic joke. So how logical is that, Lloyd?[I think you better review your own posts, I can remember them, and you did say nothing outside of everything/infinity___many, many times.]

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.[Then write the law that extends the existing laws, if you say you can, and I might listen. So far you're only using trickster to confuse others, but I'm well aware of trickster's abilities. You may as well stop using him on me, but it's still fun to play.]

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. [And I'm only pointing out the fallacies of why you can't achieve the greater mechanical understanding of the universe, by the direction you have chosen.]

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.[If I'm not mistaken, universal evolutionary biological and chemical complexity developed the feeling plants, animals and beings in the biological era. I'm not going into all the chemical biological processes, as they are well known, to millions of cognitive scientists, around the world. I accept evolutionary complexities capabilities, at the quantum level, as properly, feeling-wise, working___Thank-you.]

'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. [True science stays within empirical mechanical reality, to be true. It's the only true possible to prove. All else is venturing into unfounded mythology. The meta-anything is now impossible of proofs, since the quantum era arrived, and shows the true mechanics, at such deep levels. Mind mechanics is understood, personally only, as of the scientific yet.]

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? [Half of infinity, or half of one, and no thing stops, as all is infinitely producing finiteness, eternally. It's not a cyclic universe___It's a re-cycling universe___Decay mechanics and the laws of physics proves this___period.]

For me, it leads to the gateway that is unaffected by the workings of the subconscious/subatomic.[This path is closed by the quantum wall, of uncertainty.] The truth is infinitely deep because the functioning is infinitesimal. [The functioning is infinitesimal, yes, but you are finite.]

If I'm not mistaken, Lloyd is expressing an infinitesimal point of condensed matter that reaches a point where there is nowhere to go and it has to go out at that point.[True enough. The laws of physics require directional changes, to have any changes, yes.] It is finite, though, as I remember him mentioning that a few times, but exists absolutely within infinite space.[And finiteness eventually joins back into this infinite space, to re-generate a new finiteness. It's just finiteness must decay, for the process to start anew. This is required by the two systems of thermodynamics___Hot___Cold___Cold___Hot.]

Yeah, if you're very serious about seeking the truth, consider how impossible this other description of universal functioning: space was static, which is synonymous to nothing at all because there is no movement possible, and "then" space expanded "everywhere" - which is no problem because once it starts moving, infinitely static whatever becomes infinite space - whereby the process of particle creation takes place once the universe reaches the "point" where it cools.[Again Nobody, you have it backwards. Space starts cold and minimally moving, at near 0k. Get your fundamental facts straight. Static is only used as a figure of speech, as all scientists know about 0k's one degree of freedom requirement. You can do real science, when you start agreeing with what is fundamentally known. Yet, the infinitesimal point particle creation of the universe is fundamentally insane logic, and must be thrown in the trash, where it has always belonged___It's just a theocratic hang-over___and totally inane.]

Or, motion always existed, but where is space or all them particles moving?[Within themselves, as do all storms.] There would be so much bloody pressure that movement would be impossible;[Nobody, you seem to be totally un-aware of the physical realities of low temperature physics___There are no extreme pressures at 0k___just reasonable pressures.] and besides that there would be no "where" in particular.[Again, you confuse reality with your dream state of elswhere, that doesn't exist.]

I think First Philosophy should come first if people are serious about seeking the truth, because observations are misleading and a new math is required to understand universal functioning.[Yes, this is absolutely true, but most of the problem is linguistic.] The math site that Lloyd provided might come close, but that is like saying near absolute zero k is absolute, which is not the truth and I'm sure you know how far from it it is.[Nobody, if you'd stop over-emphasizing absolute, you may see the fundamental truth of T=0k.]

It's been fun,
Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Nobody, if you'd stop over-emphasizing absolute, you may see the fundamental truth of T=0k.

Very good, Lloyd. Although I was hoping for a more elaborate description of how the mind governs the body, and could easily disqualify the logic of finite/infinite or absolute infinity.

At any rate, how about I stop all my foolishness and we'll focus on the "real deal" of what you stated above because it seems that your whole method of madness is based on that point where in must change to out. I think you've stated it 3 times in your last post, so it might be a good way to get the basic drift of our logic right there.

First, I simply have to know why and then at which point the infinitesimal (defined as progressing infinitely toward 0 as the limit - YOUR definition) would feel the urge to change direction to conform to the physical laws of the observable universe?

And if you're going to say that the physical laws have to be such for us to observe things, I'm going to take a long walk off a short bridge. You've insulted me too many times for that explanation to justify it, so get into the infinitesimal really to explain why the physical laws must be bound by a false ground state.

To me, in continues in; out continues out; and the standing waves are observable snap shots of relative amplitude changes that don't exist when time is reversed.

We could say that the photon and graviton cancel; the electromagnetic force responsible for creating particles and the gravitational force responsible for creating antiparticles cancel absolutely to 0k. That half-baked mass through forward time is cancelled by gravity through backward time, giving us the true 0k instead of near 0k to justify observations in only forward time.

[Fluent Piffle]

What could possibly describe an 'infinitesimal point'? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Confusion will abound if you try to use a circle to describe a sphere. The analogy becomes too far removed because a circle, representing a sphere, has a two-sided perspective, whereas the sphere itself has infinite perspective (will appear the same from all possible angles).

Or, motion always existed, but where is space or all them particles moving?

I fear you are just not grasping the concept.

'Motion', 'Space' and 'particles' (which are the finite consequences of the first two) are all the same thing. One thing does what it can, when it can, because it can.

Can I ask why you posted the link in the first place?


pif.

[purveyor of knowledge]

POK,

The absolute and infinite can't mix.

Correct Nobody, and that's because the absolute undivided field is actually GREATER than infinity and LESS than negative infinity in absolute context. Now let's see you try to wrap your mind around that

I think First Philosophy should come first if people are serious about seeking the truth, because observations are misleading and a new math is required to understand universal functioning. The math site that Lloyd provided might come close, but that is like saying near absolute zero k is absolute, which is not the truth and I'm sure you know how far from it it is.

That's what I admire about you Nobody because I can see you are a true believer in first principles and you try hard to find out what it is. You consider that all the positive and negative forces cancel out and equal 0, but that is based on an old mentality in my opinion which is the skeptics mentality that I often call pessimism but please don't take offense because you don't know any better. If you look at the world from an optimistic point of view you may find that positive and negative can coexist and create perpetual motion together. That is what you find out when you consider the true definition of the "God" number or just take a simple glance at a yin yang symbol or the marriage symbol.

Now as for the site Lloyd posted I want you to know that that dude has essentiall copied my whole theory. Well I wouldn't say copied, but he has discovered the same idea - that there should be a number that is the opposite of 0 and it will provide us the information for the theory of everything. What he hasn't realized yet is that there already is a number that is the opposite of 0 and it's called 0's reciprocal aka 1/0. So basically this guy is following in my footsteps. He's doing a good job and I give him props, but as far as time being of the essence I'm already a lot further along than he is. So yeah, I got your new mathematics right here.

Chaos Magick Math

I'm going to be the new leader of the Chaos Magick movement because I discovered that it is like the true definition of everything. If I'm right and the theory of everything means that everything is becoming what it is becoming, then everything is possible and many of the credos of the Chaos Magick movement are dead on.

In the new math of Chaos Magick it will be shown that any number can be equal to any other number. What this really means is that one thing can transform into another thing via magick because at most basic level everything is made out of the same magical structure which is the structure of 1/0 aka two interlocking circles representing positive and negative infinity spinning through eachother. So if everything is made out of these interlocking circles and they are a phenomenon then energy is not a substance but a PHENOMENON that can be changed! So 1 joule of energy can transform and change into 3 joules of energy via a simple magnetic understanding of how time and energy are related via these interlocking circles. So in the new Math of Chaos Magick this transformation would be written as follows

1=0/0=3

That is how 1 goes through a transformation and becomes 3

So 0/0 is the joker card that represents the constant change of time which is a flux between the 0th hour and the final hour. So you can see that even the extreme opposite of the spectrum 0 and 1/0 are still connected. This is represented in the following equation which shows the great paradigm of beautiful diametric symmetry, and unparadoxical paradox

0=0/0=1/0

So you can see Nobody, from this last equation, that you are actually justified in a sense for saying that everything equals nothing. What you really mean to say is that the two are transformable. Every pure moment in time is seperated by the next with a block of nothing. That means that everything is connected together and this forms an field that is truely undivided in principle or divided by nothing.

So here you go Nobody, here's your new math system and I'm developing it just for you.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I'm also including FP's points below, Nobody, as his are the most valid. I'll address your points below.

Nobody, if you'd stop over-emphasizing absolute, you may see the fundamental truth of T=0k.

Very good, Lloyd. Although I was hoping for a more elaborate description of how the mind governs the body, and could easily disqualify the logic of finite/infinite or absolute infinity.

Sorry Nobody, but there's no way to disqualify absolute fundamental substance's logical reality. If you really want to know, both the finite and infinite fields of thermal/matter motions and varying velocities are fully functioning within all minds, just some better than others.

At any rate, how about I stop all my foolishness and we'll focus on the "real deal" of what you stated above because it seems that your whole method of madness is based on that point where in must change to out. I think you've stated it 3 times in your last post, so it might be a good way to get the basic drift of our logic right there.

First, I simply have to know why and then at which point the infinitesimal (defined as progressing infinitely toward 0 as the limit - YOUR definition) would feel the urge to change direction to conform to the physical laws of the observable universe?

Isn't it quite simple that the infinitely large, being infinitely larger than finiteness, would have to do some mechanical interaction, to form the lesser infinitesimal, and finite sized finitenesses___small and large? When we speak infinity, we're talking about an infinite sphere. Now, of course, you'll have an objection to this, and will say we can't know the shape of infinity. I don't care what shape you give it, as long as it exists as volumetric shape, star volume, square cube, triangular volume, conic volume, whatever, so let's settle on the sensible sphere, which we know has a possible center, just to make theory easier. Now, take the infinite sphere, add one photonic fundamental substance, and add the truly required, existing 0k thermo-hydro-dynamic pressure of naturally contracting cold. Now, take what has been offered by Fredrick and FP, about the in direction of a sphere being limited by its central entanglement area, and you have the first scalar in-waves of real FS centering, swirling, heating by friction, gaining velocity by all the centrifical, centripetal, centrifugal and centrifusal forces of this one initial mechanical nature, and constantly being fed by the infinite space FS, and its fundamental force of T=0k. As the processes continue to build for trillions of trillions of years, creating the first finite singularity, from the initial infinite fundamental substance, gravity, mass, vacuum and all the forces and conditions of finiteness are incubated in the initial singularity, and due to it's unique condition of being first, has the ability to radiate and finally explode the first out waves. This simple description can be easily technically explained, if you like, completely within the total symmetry of the laws of physics.

And if you're going to say that the physical laws have to be such for us to observe things, I'm going to take a long walk off a short bridge. You've insulted me too many times for that explanation to justify it, so get into the infinitesimal really to explain why the physical laws must be bound by a false ground state.

The only one mentioning a false ground state is you, not I. I'm just talking sensible simple physics' laws and logic. As to the infinitesimal; the infinite, starting in a slow motion, low entropy ground state, can only first produce the infinitesimal first heated structures of the ground state fundamental substance, thus the real universe evolves from the infinitesimal, up to the finite, from its infinite one ground state___It's the only workable scientific logic possible, that can not be shot down, as being false, by other superior scientific conditions and laws___It happens to be absolutely true...

To me, in continues in; out continues out; and the standing waves are observable snap shots of relative amplitude changes that don't exist when time is reversed.

You seem to forget, we have a real world, somehow formed, from the infinite, to the infinitesimal, to the finite. Where's your real world and universe mechanics of real fundamental substance, Nobody? Your above statement about in and out continuousness, is based in a partially false interpretation of quantum well mechanics, and its false mechanics within the overall well. Did you forget wave centers have to entangle and marry to create standing waves, called you and I? Yes, of course, some in and out waves continue to infinity, but others slow into standing waves, and entangle and change directions___Not all is your private self-defined universe. There are other views, and I may add___more accurate views. I don't mean to offend, but I'm not a great human being, when my ill-attituded wife is screaming at me, for spending too much time working on the computer, sorry. That screaming never stops. I feel like Socrates, who also had a visceous wife...

We could say that the photon and graviton cancel; the electromagnetic force responsible for creating particles and the gravitational force responsible for creating antiparticles cancel absolutely to 0k. That half-baked mass through forward time is cancelled by gravity through backward time, giving us the true 0k instead of near 0k to justify observations in only forward time.

Nobody, you are assuming electrodynamics, where no electrodynamics has yet been created by first fundamental substance motions. First philosophy must take step one first. There's no electromagnetic first force, no gravitational first force, and no canceling to 0k. 0k is first force, by the laws of thermodynamic requirement___Thermal can't ever be eliminated from fundamental substance motion and existence. There also ain't no such thing as backward time, except our abstracting abilities of it. Even when memories are truly viewed, they all exist NOW! Fundamental matter only exists as a forward moving entity___There is no foolish anti-matter___The laws and workings of the universe do not require it. Your true 0k, in the absolute, is another dream, as you then eliminate all possible motion, at least according to theory, which we'll probably never know, since we can't scientifically reach true 0k. A billionenth of a degree above is close enough for me to call it 0k___I know the theoretical truth of degrees of freedom, and so do you. Since it's all we know, it's what we'll have to use. If this isn't enough explanation to satisfy you, just ask me for the infinitesimal technical facts.

The next is FP's post;

What could possibly describe an 'infinitesimal point'? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? [An infinitesimal point is the smallest a point of matter can be, before becoming one with the infinite absolute fundamental substance.]

Confusion will abound if you try to use a circle to describe a sphere.[I agree FP.] The analogy becomes too far removed because a circle, representing a sphere, has a two-sided perspective, whereas the sphere itself has infinite perspective (will appear the same from all possible angles).

Quote:
Or, motion always existed, but where is space or all them particles moving?
I fear you are just not grasping the concept. [How true.]

'Motion', 'Space' and 'particles' (which are the finite consequences of the first two) are all the same thing. One thing does what it can, when it can, because it can. [Absolutely FP, and I might add, in full accordance with the mechanics of the universal laws.]

Can I ask why you posted the link in the first place? [Why did you Nobody, since it's not your belief?]

pif.

Nobody, if you want the exact details to the model's requirement of first star, I'd be glad to discuss them with you. If not, so be it...

Lloyd

p.s
All infinite fundamental substance scalar waves, compress at the center of infinity sphere, and create the first star finiteness mechanics, of friction heating and expanding the real infinite in-wave FS, and creates all its follow-on forces, of hydrodynamic hot out waves, gravity, electrodynamics, vacuum, etc. Current physics big-bang mechanics, also shows this to have been a very massive first singularity explosion... I think this is a pretty simple, yet logical and scientific mechanics of the true universe, and all functioning within the total symmetry of the laws of nature and physics... Don't you?

[Fredrick]

I'm talking about the inward-outward scalar waves of the entire universal evolution. So far, all physics has concerned itself with, only, the outward scalar waves___where's their inward scalar waves, that produces the outward scalar waves?
Lloyd

We probably all agree that our universe is in general moving outwardly, and that inward motion is available only in limited, relative, and localized situations. Yet with this image, there are two different ways for our universe to have come into being (or if you wish coming into being in series):

In the current Big Bang theory the universe started to come into existence at moment X making it all the way down the alphabet to moment A: today. The theory I support also makes it all the way to moment A of course, but has the starting point of materialization set at moment T. By making use of the alphabet (though backwards), I want to show you that I am using the same set of time-spatial markers for both theories.

As you can see, both explanations are based on the same set of information and observations. Yet the difference is quite important. If moment X is the starting point for materialization, we would indeed be able to create a theory with a unified field of forces, and everything in our universe would then somehow be linked to one another, having started at an intrinsic situation of time and space. Yet if moment T is the starting point, quite a lot of distance existed during the period(s) of materialization, both between the timing and the spatial aspects of the parts of materialization. In that case, a theory of unified forces is unlikely (except at a theoretical level).

The inward aspects I referred to in other posts is an assumption only. Just like we say that what goes up must come down, I state that what goes outwardly, must has gone inwardly first. Yet the difference between both is that only the outward moving energy experienced the transformation of materialization. Inwardly, no materialization occurred, yet the spot that is marked X in both theories is where the inward movement could not continue, and something went wrong. You can say that what went wrong was that only parts stopped moving inwardly, while other parts continued. A warping of the potential energy took place, because a disconnection in collective behavior occurred, creating individual behaviors.

The current Big Bang theory has everything start out at moment X, the theory I support has X be the spot in which the potential energy experienced its first and only limitation, and while moving outwardly, the limitation itself slowly became part of various parts of the potential energy. Materialization shows the limitation. Our materialized universe is moving outwardly. Dark matter may be what our entire universe was before materialization occurred.