[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don't see a model Fredrick, I just see you trying to create a false nothing defined space, that isn't there___period...

All is really absolute FS, even if extended, or destended...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

For me, I was going to wrap it up because there are simply too many misunderstandings based on what I had previously mentioned. The "point" of the matter is that empirical and theoretical science isn't willing to allow for a breaching or bending of the "laws" to facilitate a different viewpoint.

Lloyd has corrected my physics numerous times, when the idea is to go beyond the horizon of physics; and you just stated, not that I don't appreciate the attempts you've made, that the "one is none" signifies one absolute north/south phenomenon with none on the outside.

Pertaining to both yours and Lloyd's responses, my position considers the result of Alan Guth's proclamation of mass and gravity equalling zero. The dipolar phenomena - north/pole mass - created by photons, and gravity created by gravitons equals zero. The ground state, near-zero temperatures, zpe, etc., are bound in forward time at Planck and reverse beyond its horizon to produce gravitational effects of this universe. The photon-photon, or what I prefer to consider the photon-graviton, are the source for electromagnetic charges functioning in both directions of time. And the energy density of space is the result of fractions of time in the form of "virtual particles" whereby when part of the equation is observed - the only part that can be observed - it is soley by way of time dilation. In other words, the objects you see aren't "really" there because they are annihilated instantaneously. Protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, squarks, you name it, are snapshots in time of the effects of annihilation in no time. Sort of gives a new meaning to creating our own reality, and atomic half lives.

In a nut's hell, the "photons/gravitons" act as superconductive material, and fractional charges and temperatures don't continue to zero where they reverse, but at any point physics deems there is a boundary. This, to me, is important because spacetime is incremental through Planck time/length. It doesn't stretch by way of vacuum energy. It is the vacuum energy, that "increases over time," and is absolute at any and every point. Hence, G=mc2.

[Fredrick]

Thank you both for your replies. Of course, I am happier with Nobody's reply than yours, Lloyd, but each person has the right to differ or decide to not look.

I will deliver a last example, and end that with a request to both of you (and others) to use the model for correctly placing the information you already know.

1 — The model has three oppositional pairs, and in the pyramid of "primary colors" the pair of white vs. all primary colors is easy to spot. In the top, where all colors come together, we find white, while at the four corners of the pyramid we find red, blue, yellow, and green. As you notice, there should only be three primary colors, but the color set actually comes in two different versions: when using paint, the three colors are red, blue, and yellow; when using light (as in a television tube) the three colors are red, blue and green.

2 — The differing pair that shows transformation is therefore yellow and green, since it is either yellow or green that is used as a primary color. One is when light is reflected, the other when it is light itself. You will recognize the similarity with young-old, the other transformational pair I used in an earlier post. This differing pair includes the situation in the middle of being both young & old (or said differently of being neither young nor old). For yellow and green this is the transformation of yellow to gray/muted — from reflected light to no light (and thus no reflection either) — and then on from gray/muted to green — from no light to just light (but no reflection).

3 — The other oppositional pair is red and blue. Instead of seeing them as each others opposite, they are here just the two outcomes that remain unchangeable. Within themselves, they are well-grounded, like the Northpole being the ultimate pole of North and the Southpole being the ultimate South. Same is true for the male-female pair, each one of them ultimately being the grounded delivery of their gender. Despite that grounded nature, we are of course much more than just our gender, and genetically we are overwhelmingly similar (though we often focus on what is not similar). Yet in gender, human beings are each other's opposite.

In the pyramid of color, red and blue are the only two colors that can deliver two other easily recognizable colors when mixing them: purple and brown. When mixing two primary colors no other set delivers two very distinguishable colors — they only deliver one.

The outside of the pyramid is where we find black, that 'color' of no reflection and no light. The brightest contrast is naturally found in top, with black sitting right next to white. While black is not part of the pyramid itself, it does have a surprising place inside it as well. When the primary colors are mixed we get white in the top, but lower on the pyramid the white is toned down, muted — the central core of the pyramid gets grayer and grayer towards the base. If we were to peel away all that what shows color in this pyramid, and only leave the gray in place, the cone becomes visible. The gray part within the pyramid — what can also be seen as the combination of black and white — is the cone, already described to have various important mathematical deliveries: the circle, the ellipse, the parabole and hyperbole. The cone is where we find the results as delivered through cooperation (mixing of colors).

--------------------

So, Lloyd and Nobody. I would like to ask you to use this model of the three oppositional pairs. If you don't mind, Lloyd, will you please try your hand on placing the four forces in this model. And would you use it to display your DNA information, Nobody. As you will notice, some of the information/knowledge you have will be too specific to be placed in the model, but I am hoping you will experience the surprise when having to use these three oppositional pairs: general-specific, the ultimate/unchangeable pair, and the changeable/transformational pair. Only if you experience the surprise of placing the specific forces or building blocks in place, do I believe you will find the correctness of this fascinating overall delivery. Yet you will then also see that it is a modest model — no TOE will ever predict the exact number of sand grains on the beach on Wednesday, three o'clock; that is not how a TOE works.

The first pair in the case of the four forces would of course be the generic term 'force' vs. the specific forces, and in the case of DNA it would be the 'genetic building block' vs. the building blocks in specific.

I hope you allow me this honor, guys. One last clue, the correct view of a pyramid never shows four corners at the same time. Only when standing at the top of a pyramid can one see all four corners, but that specific high-up location should be considered as far removed from the ground. When we see a pyramid in the distance, the maximum number of corners we can see is only three. By walking around, we can remain grounded at all time, yet take in the overall information too.

Please, if others want to try their hand on this model, go ahead.

[mkirkpatrick]

A point to ponder,prehaps,if at the end of your life-time you had absolutely nothing to
show for it,consider how you would feel about this?Would you for instance be proud?
Would you want to tell all who would listen to you,about the wonderful nothing you had
not achieved? I wonder........






regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick, 4D space does not fit in a 3D pyramid model, no matter how many sides you add. And, the absolute top position holds the absolute truth___The DNA quad helix of universal motion, as I have described in Planet Bob's thread...

Nobody and Fredrick, check out one of our newest members threads:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/2511-reinstatement-abandoned-cosmological-constant.html
Sorry, link doesn't work, too long. It's RascalPuff under TOE Theories

It is one of the ways I understand Einstein's abstract model of the universe. You may be interested, as it covers most areas, and even extends the model a bit, into my model. I advocate reading all three full pages, about two days worth of reading...

BTW Nobody, "qualia is relatively moot", has no meaning, as you've stated it as, relative. It's either absolutely moot or not...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Ok, Fredrick, but realize that if the model we submit doesn't fit we must quit it.

Contextually (sort of an important factor), it doesn't fit and here's why:

The top position is not absolutely unified, but can become infinitely more unified the more the colors merge - the absolute point of white is not whitest, but non-existent (not black either); the base of the model is based on separation, and increases infinitely the more the colors are separated from each other, the absolute darkest hue of any color is not black, but non-existent; the absolute singularity, whether it be a singular unification of influencing colors or a singular color at maximum entropy, doesn't exist based on the probablistic boundary of the Uncertainty Principle.

Even if we include Lloyd's diamond, or consider the central point of the base, darker and darker shades of gray toward black...never absolutely black.

It's sort of like the Yin/Yang, TaiChi Symbol, containing if even infinitesimal amounts of each opposite, never absolutely white or black; and then there is no symbol at all, known as WuChi - non-existence. It has been suggested that if we absorbed and detected all photons through our retinae, black would turn to white and white would turn to black because there is no differentiation. You know, "blinded by the light."

I tried to use the, perhaps similar, white canvass containing all pictures until there is differentiation, to separate the various hues by which reality is ascertained, without which there is no such thing as existence - neither awareness of the light show, nor the awareness of the lack of it.

The subconscious, which governs "reality," is based on the probablistic persistence of existence in a form that can exist circumstantially according to myriad factors originating in an abstract subatomic functioning. Abstract, because all scales are resolved at points that don't exist "now."

Again, the "fundamental" workings are slowed considerably, comparable to the spectrum being a designated portion of an infinite spectrum; consciousness being comparable to the visible spectrum; and the absolute - of which there is no time - where anything is circumstantially possible. Possible only through fluctuations of the two perspectives of non-existence - namely, "one" and "none" containing an infinite number of abstractfractions that the subconscious feeds the conscious to make "real" the unreal.

Lloyd,

Direct question: what would happen to your absolute mass if it was torn apart at greater than the speed of light?

Like you said, the link is old news. Yet, direct question two: consider if a hydrogen atom consisted of 900 or so electrons and 900 or so positrons - a.k.a., a neutron, in what way could we possibly/probably extract an electron to give us a proton and electron?

[N0B0DY]

Moot (debateable), by definition, is relative, Lloyd. Relatively moot being somewhat arguable in an expressionary sense.

I don't know why you persist to insist upon "absolute" by continually taking it out of context the way you do.

It's not like you can't exist without it.

[Fredrick]

I kind of expected answers of avoidance, and with one more eloquent than the other (one has the appearance of delivering an answer), I feel conflicted on how to approach this request best now.

On the one hand, I can ask you the question again: Will you use the model to find the fitting places for 'forces' and 'DNA.' I am not stating that you need to agree with the outcome, I hope you will just use it, share your results (whether you are impressed with the outcome or not), and this way allowing me to communicate and discuss the outcome with you guys.

On the other hand, I should encourage others to try their hands on this model. If Lloyd and Nobody are afraid to use it, would you please use it (and for you too, I am interested in discussing the outcome, not that you have to immediately be in awe about it)? For 'forces' I am especially interested in that location where Gravity ends up. For 'DNA' the story is more complex, since the four building blocks only come in pairs — and are therefore somewhat boring from the pyramid model's perspective — so to make it more interesting the amino acids need to be addressed too.

Can I ask you, Purveyor of Knowledge, MJA, Fluent Piffle, R.P. Bibra, Mkirkpatrick, Austintorn@aol.com, Planet_Bob, Dleviwing, Magic, Eric, Infinite Consciousness, Aimtb, Mr. Nobody, and Sillysally (I read the postings back to banned Lodestar, and I hope I am not leaving any names out) to give me the pleasure of your honor, and use this model?

Please, don't be shy to try using the model for any overall delivery (biology, math, physics, you-name-it). In this thread about nothing, I hope I do not have to explain that finding oneself positioned in a place where the other person just does not reach out and ignores a request, is exactly where the function of Nothing becomes the equivalent of being muted. I am strong enough to take that, and in a sense I like that you have the freedom to ignore me just as I have that freedom too, but will you please try your hand on this model?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Lloyd,

Direct question: what would happen to your absolute mass if it was torn apart at greater than the speed of light? [I have already posted in this thread and many others, that any mass, even being a 10# football of diamond/germanium, tungston, and titanium, would reach its terminal critical mass entropy velocity, and begin radiating away all its substance structure, except its fundamental photonic substance, which is all that would reach true c, and have what standard physics refers to as zero mass, but I doubt this figure, as mass and energy are supposed to be equivalent, Einstein's equivalence principle, but I see the energy exists, yet physics says photons are zero mass. It's a problem with physics, not I. In the end, the absolute fundamental photonic substance, still exists, as true matter mass/energy/motion. Somebody better re-do the physics books.]

Like you said, the link is old news. Yet, direct question two: consider if a hydrogen atom consisted of 900 or so electrons and 900 or so positrons - a.k.a., a neutron, in what way could we possibly/probably extract an electron to give us a proton and electron?

We extract such atomic structures with catalytic propertied minerals and metals, by passing atomic/molecular structures through such specialty made converters, as the materials require. Neutron bombs also do this. Certain photo-voltaic cells also accomplish the same, or similar acts. Certain fuel cell technologies are also already doing similar work___Check out Ballard Power, in B.C., Canada___They do work for NASA. New work in these areas looks most promising, expecially new advances in nano-energy-technology. The more complex issue would be how to create electrons and protons from natural photon light. Nature does it, so there's really no reason why we can't, with the proper experiences and experiments. Still, as I've said many places before, no matter what great scientific device mankind creates, the greedy power brokers will turn it quickly into another facet of the economic greed machine, so technology's only true answers, lie in economically computerizing, with time-scaler changing laws, their greed, out of the system.

Nobody, the reason I keep insisting on using absolute, is the world has far too long been plagued by relative abstractions, that much foolish physics has wandered off into. I don't know if you realize it or not, but this bad process has filtered out into every cross-disciplinary field, with devastating results, to the evolution of sensible knowledge advancements. Believe me, I've attended many of the other fields' seminars and meetings. No-one can make any headway with all the gridlock presented by relativity and abstraction, or pure religion, as I call it. It is the real problem, of solving any of the world's real problems___period. So, I say, "Welcome back, Mr. Absolute." And believe me, I'm not the only one going down this road. If you do a search of "relative", and "absolute", on Google, you'll find them about matched, last I checked around 15 to 16 million hits each... I just checked again, and these two words are running two to one for relative, but for "absolute truth" and "relative truth", it's considerably in favor of "absolute truth", anyway, the debate is a hotly contested area of inquiry...

Lloyd

p.s.
"The world is a gambling casino,
Designed and sanctioned by "god".
Money is the mind of the spirit.
The bankers are the dealers,
And, we are the hands,
Playing the cards, of greed!" me

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

It's not a matter of intentionally ignoring you. It's a matter of your model not being able to be forcefit to apply to this thread contextually. There are no prohibitions, that I'm aware of, of you starting a thread entilted "Pyramidal Model" to express what you're looking for. Here I'm looking for someone of a particular sort to express a particular piece of a puzzle.

To be clear, not insulting, north-south-east-west are the same without rotation. My universal model is non-directional, non-dimensional, and neuter-gender. The DNA/protein and forces are to be negated, not explained, the absolute point where they are thought to become one is none. Pyramids, none; human beings, none; etc., none. Where abstract infinity is used only to negate itself.

Outside of that, your model is best-expressed, imo, at one of my favorite sites: atlan.org where pyramids, ouroborus DNA, colors, crystals, etc., are delved into in detail.

Lloyd,

They are working on converting more than 5% or so mass to energy, but the equivalency is based on c2. Showing that the fundamental photonic substance is null and void when the gravitational time dilation is not factored in, which in turn is based on massive spacetime objects. No mass equals no gravity equals no phenomenal time dilation for photons.

The next question might be, how motionless and massless particles can create massive particles?

I think it's already been done through HEP experiments, and it has something to do with a reduction in energy density which is supposed to remain constant.