T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

As for the debate, I think if Einstein's gravity was put together in a particular fashion so as to not be so conflicting with Newton's, the debate could be resolved.

How would you go about doing it, Lloyd?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

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[IMO, this is fiction.] 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. [I would just simply ask you to look at this simple model. Imagine photons, and waves as high speed hydrodynamic ram-jets, critical mass firing into each's successive photon packet and waves, especially when it's the tremendous voltage gamma rays' ram jets___at critical mass firing velocity/speed of C^2. Now picture a mammoth mass of these breeder reacting ram-jets all critical mass exploding in each other's paths, in all directions spheroidally and outwardly, reproducing/propagating themselves___This is the hot scalar wave, and its group velocity multiplications, into extreme true mass values, at the super-sub-quantum___The self-critical mass powered hot wave. Now picture the in-waves, of only thermal motions, slowly compacting and compressing hydrodynamically, all of infinity's FS, or photonic fundamental substance, toward the only possible first singularity center, since it's a set of thermal scalar waves, coming in eternally, from all of infinity___The self-hydrodynamically powered cold wave. I think there's enough real solid mass capability, there, to form a finite universe, because FS absolutely is required to have real mass, even if extremely infinitesimal a measure of___or even truly un-measurable by our present scientific instruments, it's still there, to create the real universe, we all know absolutely exists. It has to be real mass FS, or logic doesn't make sense, then we're all insane. I'll take the sanity of sound logic, thanks. Both cold and hot thermals move the FS, first to the center of infinity, as finiteness evolution, then explode it out, back to the infinite FS, just as any weather system, here on earth or in solar space, moves air/aether within air/aether. I think the FS, is only a borrowed fuel for scalar wave motions, in the finite universe, yet is the entire mechanics of the pre-first star universe. At the same time, it' just one huge thermal mechanical hydrogolic deisel critical mass firing engine, as this is the only propellent I see possible to fit all the needed scientific forces, and actions, of the whole universe. The linguistics, science, math and physics, must be re-done, back into a sensible and possible reality.]

The next question might be, how motionless and massless particles can create massive particles? [As I've described below, there is absolutely no such thing as a motionless and massless particle___This is physics' big myth of uncertainty. The absolute photon, and FS, has and is absolutely required, to have un-measurable mass. No possible instrument can measure a drop of salt water, completely in and within the ocean___The uncertainty principle.]

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. [I know of no possible way for any energy density to remain constant, over universal time/distance___In my universe___Change is all there is.]

Nobody, your question, " The next question might be, how motionless and massless particles can create massive particles?" Somewhere between here and there, one part of physics' texts is dead wrong. Either the photon has energy/mass or it has neither. Physics likes to state they have energy, yet no mass, and as I already stated, this is an impossibility, in leu of the equivalence principle___E=MC^2. So, do you see what I mean. The mass of the photon's energy has been either falsely figured by physics, or the linguistics of the language, when talking about the one absolute fundamental photon/photonic substance/photons is impossible, to make true and rational sense out of. Either, we re-do the physics, to represent photons with real mass, to match their energy, or the whole game of reality does not work, as you have tried to point out, and I have mentioned on many threads, this very FS, math and physics' problem. Even though, at the same time, I have stated that a photon, in the photonic substance, will have no measure, within the substance, and it's always eternally in the FS, so, as I've tried to be clear to you before___It's a true linguistics problem___The real fundamental photon has mass___and it's absolutely un-measurable, as quantum mechanics, has, in its round-about language and gauge theory conglomerations, stated, for years, and by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle___It still holds. We only have sensible logic to figure the FS linguistics problem with, and that requires our adherence to the only law applicable here___Einstein's equivalence principle___E=MC^2, since we absolutely know it functions, as it produced a bomb. It was actually a female, Lisa Mietner, who first split U238, by realizing what had happened in her experiments, when trying to create U239. She used Einstein's E=MC^2 to understand the math mechanics___It measured absolutely accurately, with Einstein's math. So, IMO, the equivalence principle is absolutely correct, and photons are absolutely required to have un-measurable mass, as of our science abilities, to this date. This is where all solid matter reality comes from, and is only produced in solid matter stars, solid matter black-holes, or solid matter star nurseries, between galaxies, in gaseous clouds, and all by the near 0k thermal hydrodynamics of well-known low temperature physics. The only in-waves possible, since they are concave, is from thermal infinity, as all out-waves, being projected through space, are convex, and are absolutely required to be produced by stars, etc., simply because these are the only two possible scientific sources and shapes___Think about it___Only!!! You don't get space-waves from nothing___That's magic___and the universe ain't magic___It's absolutely scientific! You can't get concave in waves from stars, etc., it's Impossible!!! Science better dig out its little toolkit of logic, instead of sitting on it...

As for the debate, I think if Einstein's gravity was put together in a particular fashion so as to not be so conflicting with Newton's, the debate could be resolved.

How would you go about doing it, Lloyd?

Nobody, I don't think there's anything in the real literature of Newton and Einstein, that is in conflict. If you find all of Newton's literature on the subject of mass and gravity, he actually created most of Einstein's ideas for Einstein, and that would make them both stating the 4th dimension is gravity, so there's no debate there. The debate problem arose with quantum mechanics, Planck's e=hf as the smallest possible measurement, the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg, and the big mass agruments over all this. Just as David has stated elsewhere, the entire advance of physics and new theories depends on the clarrification advances in "Mass", alone. This is where the problem is, and I'm afraid, will be for some time, unless some of us can put our thinking caps on and realize both Newton and Einstein are correct as to both mass and gravity, and quantum mechanics is wrong, as to zero mass, or the linguistics of, whatever. The equivalence principle proves the necessity of mass/energy, and photons are admitted to have energy and no mass, yet quantumists, keep coming up with their false zero mass values. Even many classicists falsely interpret Einsteins E=MC^2 wrong, as zero mass, when in reality, he meant no such thing. Einstein and Lorentz realized, early on, that Lorentz's transformation math did not work close to the speed of light, so they never stated anything about zero mass. It's an obvious logical problem Nobody, but as Machiavelli said; "All men have eyes, few have the gift of perception." So, where do you procede, when there seems to be no empirical math possible? All I see is a logical theory___possibility, based on the law of mass/energy equivalence___either it is, or it isn't. It is...!

Yet, thinking about it a bit deeper, there is my model of critical mass entropy, as any mass approaches the speed of light. As I stated, a 10# football nearing the speed of light, is required to give up it's mass, through velocity/mass/entropy, radiating away all its mass, except its photonic and em-wave mass. Of course, all this 10#'s of mass is still present, as radiated energy/mass, just the same as when we explode an atomic bomb___all mass is present and accounted for, as long as we don't use quantum mechanics false zero mass gauge theories, fixed or unfixed, and write it all off, to the uncertainty principle. The 10# football must conform to the entropy laws of physics, just the same as a pot of boiling water, and LaVoissiere proved the first thermodynamic equivalence principle of matter/energy almost two hundred years ago. Nothing dissappears, it's all there, as real mass, no matter what the empirical experiment involved___steel hammers or photons___they're all real FS, and all have real mass, even waves, or they couldn't wave. But, how do you convince a skeptical public, or physics community, that em-waves and photons have real solid mass? All space is real fundamental solid mass, in it's many density states, approaching the infinitesimal mass, of a non-viscous fluidic ground state, but to prove it? Ahhh...quite a feat. Many have tried. Many have failed. Many are again trying to prove it___Will they succeed? We have to, to solve the world's problems, by using such a platform proof, as the power base for other more pressing issues___period, or we perish, as a human race___The radical Mid-Easterners are already threatening damages bigger than Hiroshima. I believe them, so we better start co-operating on the really Big---Idea!

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

I'm pretty sure we've been through the big idea many many times, and will repeat the same stupid history even after the sun fries the earth. It's a sick twist buried in every mind, which I have proven to myself in a particular perspective-to-perception way.

From the beginning of this thread, I've tried to portray the means by which the forces are negated as a whole. For sure, Lloyd, I can understand your frustrating predicament when trying to explain that "man's got to know his boundaries. Yet since time immemorial man has taken for granted what is beyond the observable and theoretical.

I know also that the wild world of quantum mechanics gets to you as well, but like Witten has said, "It can be tamed." I'm sure you've come across the notion of gravity escaping into another universe to account for its feebleness, and there can be a clear picture of how we can apply this to both microscopic and macroscopic gravity when we go beyond Planck - the "meeting point" of multiple universes being any point beyond Planck.

In effect, the stronger forward-time electromagnetic universe consists solely of the effects gravity (the force beyond Planck) has on the photons you perceive as real. The "point of impact" of your ramjets produce in waves subplanck where gravity escapes into another universe's forward time. The strong force, being the inverse of gravity, confines particles when gravity overcomes electromagnetism; the weak force, the inverse of electromagnetism, creates protons when electromagnetism overcomes gravity. Essentially all the forces are a result of the repellent and attractive effects of electromagnetism functioning in both directions of time. The omniverse, if you will, remains constant at absolute 0 based on the Certainty Principle that states that all forces have equal counter forces negating all to 0.

Another problem I see is in equating absolute solidity and absolute vacuity, rendering both states motionless and hence non-existent, when we invoke spatial infinity as being the fundamental substance of which motion creates crashing waves. I would say, no, the waves aren't moving until symmetry is broken and the wave function collapses at a predetermined probablistic measurement. In reality, the energy density remains constant at 0, and observable waves are the result of gravitational time dilation in the form of weak and electromagnetic decay.

If everything happens in no time, empirical and theoretical science seems to be accounting for phenomena way behind the times.

[Fredrick]

I guess I must save the surprising answer for my book then. I may have said too much already. A clever person can spot the TOE already now without having to work his or her brains too hard.

I am withdrawing my request to others as well, since I should not use others as a wedge; that is not a comfortable position for anyone.

P.S. The model is not 4D. By placing male in opposite of female, we have not all of a sudden become 4D. Light and reflection of light exist within an ordinary 3D universe, nothing 4D about that.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Nobody, are we having fun, yet...?

The omniverse, if you will, remains constant at absolute 0 based on the Certainty Principle that states that all forces have equal counter forces negating all to 0. [This is the great problem with quantum mechanics, equal counter forces never negate to zero. Forces must always be FS in motion. It's there. It's real. It must always be accounted for, and they are not. This is the problem, I have tried to relay to you, about the physics' books/texts. They are in disagreement/disequilibrium with each other___the ergodicity problem, existing in all academic studies___All!!!]

Another problem I see is in equating absolute solidity and absolute vacuity, rendering both states motionless and hence non-existent, when we invoke spatial infinity as being the fundamental substance of which motion creates crashing waves. [This is the point, I've tried also to show you about linguistics. When talking about the absolute fundamental One, it becomes almost linguistically impossible to relay ideas of separateness/togetherness, solid/liquid, soft/hard, cold/hot, positive/negative, etc., etc...] I would say, no, the waves aren't moving until symmetry is broken[waves self-break symmetry, within self___The FS wave is a self-symmetry/asymmetry capable wave___but it's still real FS.] and the wave function collapses at a predetermined probablistic measurement. [Wave functions don't collapse, they are real fundamental substance in motion___they exist eternally, in changed state forms.] In reality, the energy density remains constant at 0, and observable waves are the result of gravitational time dilation in the form of weak and electromagnetic decay. [Nobody, when you use abstracts, to refer, or to infer anything into logic, I see no solid reality possible, so I always use the FS as representing "Everything, logically extended/destended", for clarity's sake. IMO, energy density is impossible of ever being 0, and time dilation is non-existent, unless you are referring to motion changes of FS positions, sizes and temperatures. In that case, as any matter moves through matter, it increases mass, and radiates mass exhaust, as magnetic and electric moments, also real fundamental substance in motion. If you are talking about what a em-wave may look like in flight, it would look like a quad DNA helix, as the mag and electric moments spin and travel through real matter space, exhausting real FS, as these mag and electric moments, spraying real matter space, and other em-waves, with real FS. It would look as RascalPuff has described it, quantum model-wise, i.e., matter extended in motion, distance/motion. It's quite a 4D show, but science lacks any 4-body math to represent all these motions. IMO, that leaves us with just logic, to totally understand the universe.]

If everything happens in no time, empirical and theoretical science seems to be accounting for phenomena way behind the times.

As you have mentioned about quantum mechanics being weird and confusing to me and many at times, here, I'd say it has somehow led you down this false road of no time. The truest reason the universe is thermodynamically forward moving only, is because it's real fundamental substance, everywhere___Even the newest chemistry and biology, of mass increase, and decrease, in sealed containers, is showing the proofs to these long debated thermodynamic issues___The universe goes forward, only___always. And, of course, science is accounting for phenomena way behind the times. This is rather obvious, our tongues travel at a very slow speed, and light is here and gone, rather fast, before we can even form the idea of one word, so it's just a natural phenomena identity problem.

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein)

He must have been having a bad day.

You seem to have an aversion towards anyone who conflicts with your absolute thinking, Lloyd. I have to stand behind my conclusion that your FS is BS, not "just because," but because we have to remain consistent in drawing logical conclusions based on localized reference frames that can't possibly exist to the absolute universe. Motion in matter creating time is ass-backwards, because without time there can be no such thing as matter/motion/space. Perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of all time, was honest enough to realize he was barking up the wrong tree of life.

His statements and self-corrective science continually conflicted, but there was always a theme of unifying things that were once thought to be separate. If he had lived long enough, perhaps he too would tackle unifying everything and nothing.

What I see as the main hurdle for you is this: "This is the great problem with quantum mechanics, equal counter forces never negate to zero. Forces must always be FS in motion." F=ma and E=Fd/t, where the carriage is incremental over Planck, equates to zero force at every point. Essentially, you're right, they don't negate to zero. They are zero without the time to produce the observeable effect.

There is no time, Lloyd. It has to be broken up into segments to create incremental time/distance through a reduction of acceleration which in turn creates the acceleration of mass through space. Your matter in motion decreases length, increases mass, and increases time; and for the "fundamental" building blocks of of matter to have what you claim they have - "mass" - it would require an infinite amount of localized energy for it to literally move anywhere, which renders photons motion-less, mass-less and energy-less beyond Planck's universal boundary. Above Planck there is only deceleration of the absolute velocity - at zero - what we can call the creation point of abstract matter.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Boy Nobody, you sure have a hard time accepting any form of recognizable reality. Reality is not time, matter, and motion exaggerations, it's straight-forward, one piece of FS after another, all the way up to us. You could call it an incremental universe, because that's exactly what it is. Real fundamental substance incrementally, dividing, then multiplying at the IN-Finite, i.e., IN-Finite-Wave Center, to build the Out-Finite-Wave Center. The incremental infinitesimal/In-Finite-Out-Waves are also traveling In-In the In-Finite Concave Wave. You get your head wrapped around infinity's true motions, and you might see reality...

You seem to have an aversion towards anyone who conflicts with your absolute thinking, Lloyd. [Naturally.] I have to stand behind my conclusion that your FS is BS, not "just because," but because we have to remain consistent in drawing logical conclusions based on localized reference frames that can't possibly exist to the absolute universe. [You should realize Nobody, that from all your quantum studies, the gauge of all theories must be set, first, but in the truest model of the universe, my model, it's an absolutely unset-gauge-model, allowing all matter/energy/motion state changes, to effectively take place. This is the trouble with all gauge set theories, they all break down, due to their invariance impossibilities, either at origin, end or middle universal motion positions. The model I offer, is "The Absolute Variable Gauge Universe." You understand that, and maybe we can continue. I'm not stuck in any static gauge theory, as are most all others, Even Newton and Einstein.] Motion in matter creating time is ass-backwards, because without time there can be no such thing as matter/motion/space. [Your ideas are too time gauge invariant to allow the proper functioning of a real universe. Lose the time invariance, and replace it with space/energy/matter/distance's absolute variances.] Perhaps one of the greatest geniuses of all time, was honest enough to realize he was barking up the wrong tree of life. [No, he had it right, variances, then he got it wrong, invariant cc, and he couldn't repair the damages. He only needed to unite all the individual absolute variable gauge theories, and the answer would have clearly fallen out, but he failed. Einstein's equivalence principle is in fact, the absolute variable gauge principle, and it's also the absolute permanency principle, which is the gauge invariance of absolute equilibrium___It's an absolute equilibrium universe. It works as an absolute equilibrium computer model, with its time/distance variable gauge mechanics. The Yin/Yang symbol probably comes the closest to picturing the actual 4D particle in motion, at light speed___think about it.]

His statements and self-corrective science continually conflicted, but there was always a theme of unifying things that were once thought to be separate. If he had lived long enough, perhaps he too would tackle unifying everything and nothing. [Everything yes, nothing, I doubt he'd waste his time, yet you using such a skeptical position, does serve the purpose of corrective theorizing. So, I guess it's useful.]

What I see as the main hurdle for you is this: "This is the great problem with quantum mechanics, equal counter forces never negate to zero. Forces must always be FS in motion." F=ma and E=Fd/t, where the carriage is incremental over Planck, equates to zero force at every point. Essentially, you're right, they don't negate to zero. They are zero without the time to produce the observable effect. [Nobody, your time invariance is a position of your own mind, not the matter/motion universe. It's your own abstract invariance fallacy.]

There is no time, Lloyd. [Time is the invariant non-existent, to the universe___forget about it___Einstein did.] It has to be broken up into segments to create incremental time/distance through a reduction of acceleration which in turn creates the acceleration of mass through space. [If you're talking about FS___true, but time___No!] Your matter in motion decreases length, increases mass, and increases time; and for the "fundamental" building blocks of of matter to have what you claim they have - "mass" - it would require an infinite amount of localized energy for it to literally move anywhere, which renders photons motion-less, mass-less and energy-less beyond Planck's universal boundary. [This is the standard fallacy of invariant time gauge fallacy. No fundamental matter ever shrinks___fundamental matter is the only invariant in the universe, as to size___It never changes size___It is eternal size change, by uniting and dis-uniting___with itself.] Above Planck there is only deceleration of the absolute velocity - at zero - what we can call the creation point of abstract matter.

Nobody, you gotta get your head around the fundamental center, of the universe, to better understand its ultimate substance mechanics. You see, above you have used another false invariant___absolute velocity at zero___such an absolute invariant does not, and can not exist___It breaks the universal laws of physics' symmetry, not only at origin and end, but in the middle evolution stages, also. Absolute velocity, as quantity, is fine, that means it's just infinitely existing, but as quality, velocity/speed, it's truly the greatest invariance fallacy of modern physics___lose it to see the variant truth of true c and c, plus the lesser states of colder, slower motions of absolute photonic FS.

There are no inconsistencies in my logic, Nobody. It's just simple common sense logic, of a higher order___Absolute truth. Remember, the absolute truth, is always a variant motion scalar, and an invariant infinite/infinitesimal incremental fundamental matter fact___And matter flows within matter___It's a non-viscous fluidic, super-thinned density, self-substance. This doesn't mean matter doesn't change size with age, i.e., inflation, it does___It's just the absolute infinitesimal incremental fundamental substance, never changes absolute fundamental size___only velocity, yet over-all grows and shrinks, within its self additions' and subtractions' whole One self___motion's friction, heat and sound waves, are the hydrodynamic mechanics of its fundamental motions, and its universal tick-tick-tick clock___The fundamental photonic substance clock.

Lloyd

p.s.
Sorry, more curves...

[N0B0DY]

While looking into Rascal's postings, I noticed you mentioned there are gaps to be filled. Creating quite an opening for the "God of the gaps" I would say. In both yours and his, there are gaps to be filled because you leave out half the picture. Though, perhaps you could better describe your model pictorially, as I have numerous times, to help me "wrap my head around" what you are getting at.

Please note that absolute variable is a contradiction in our contextual terms here, Lloyd. If you say that c literally varies, it can't remain literally constant. Alternatively, zero-point position (absolute) is the only constant that makes certain the uncertain variables of zero-point energy (relative infinity). Again, it's not a matter of reaching zero, but realizing that there is no freedom of motion (no give and no gaps) to your FS.

To wrap our heads around this, consider someone looking up at the south pole proclaiming that the earth is rotating clockwise; while someone else looking down at the north pole is proclaiming it is rotating counter-clockwise. Which way is it rotating? Both or neither?

We require relative frames of reference and set laws that dictate rotation according to a flow from the poles. Yet, for every force there is an opposite counter force, which at Planck reverses the direction of flow. Ultimately, fairly simple to realize that north becomes south, and south becomes north.

This above is where you mistake my position, Lloyd, and continue to proclaim that motion is constant regardless of the perspective (one perspective). It is relatively accurate, and fair enough, but does not take into account both perspectives simultaneously which is what the absolute universe is forced to do.

Further, another way to picture it might be considering the revolution of earth around the sun. Imagine it revolving the other way from another perspective, and consider the exact meeting point of both perspectives. What would be the result?

To me, it would be absolutely no motion at all without relative forces influencing the inertial frame. The true "rest mass" remains zero, even if we include the "worlds within worlds" scenario, the membranes scenario, big-bang scenario, anti-universe scenario, or whatever scenario you feel toots your horn.

[N0B0DY]

Hello again, Lloyd.

I also noticed you mention the "prime mover," can't believe I missed that important "point."

Consider a movie that gives the impression of motion from incrementally joining static snapshots, or one of them books where you flip the pages to get the impression of static pictures in motion. The true state is motionless, and the illusory state is one of motion.

There is really no need to search for a prime mover, because amplitudes are nothing more than static snapshots detected, observed, and measured over incremental Planck time. There are already an infinite number of potential amplitudes, wavelengths, densities, etc., ready and waiting to be "realized" through the relative laws of division.

(Self Portrait)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Though, perhaps you could better describe your model pictorially, as I have numerous times, to help me "wrap my head around" what you are getting at. [Just sensible evolution from the infinitely huge whole, yet infinitesimally small parts, into the first finite singularity, and on to the real substance world, we live in, nothing more.]

Please note that absolute variable is a contradiction in our contextual terms here, Lloyd. [Not in mine, Nobody.] If you say that c literally varies, it can't remain literally constant. [Sorry, yes it can___Matter density controls the whole universal picture, and density varies in different areas of our universe. That's measurable just by the known radiation, and different rates of expansion of older and newer galaxies.] Alternatively, zero-point position (absolute) is the only constant that makes certain the uncertain variables of zero-point energy (relative infinity). [I don't agree with this either. Zero-point position is meaningless in a dynamically changing universe, and zpe is always minimal, now, zue{zero universal energy} would have some power, but not zpe___far too weak.] Again, it's not a matter of reaching zero, but realizing that there is no freedom of motion (no give and no gaps) to your FS. [You should study low temperature physics more closely. The degree of freedom is always there, even at just billion'th's of a degree above absolute 0k. The fundamental substance, or very close to with he3 and he4, moves just fine within itself, one atom thick as it crawls out of its container. Low temperature physics is stranger than you may realize, but it does work.]

To wrap our heads around this, consider someone looking up at the south pole proclaiming that the earth is rotating clockwise; while someone else looking down at the north pole is proclaiming it is rotating counter-clockwise. Which way is it rotating? Both or neither? [Same as the question of galaxy rotation, doesn't matter, as it's just a matter of personal perspective, i.e., which side or end you're on, or at. The point is, it's only going one way, as thermodynamics' law requires.]

We require relative frames of reference and set laws that dictate rotation according to a flow from the poles. [I like knowing where I am___I prefer absolute frames of reference, i.e., from the absolute fundamental ground up. There is true un-moving ground, if you but realize it. It's the position, in our minds, of nearest absolute stillness, we witness all motion with___The truest absolute self.] Yet, for every force there is an opposite counter force, which at Planck reverses the direction of flow. [According to you and some others, but not myself___counter force, yes, but reverse the direction of flow, no.] Ultimately, fairly simple to realize that north becomes south, and south becomes north. [Only in alternating current. You're talking about earth's poles, are you not? I think they take some thousands of years to reverse polarities, though they do, over time___Possibly in 2012, as the Myan Calandar may predict...?]

This above is where you mistake my position, Lloyd, and continue to proclaim that motion is constant regardless of the perspective (one perspective). It is relatively accurate, and fair enough, but does not take into account both perspectives simultaneously which is what the absolute universe is forced to do. [Sorry, but yes it does, and I keep mentioning it. It's hidden in the linguistic entanglement of the one/many positions and motions, at once___always... I only have one tongue, to describe motion, so simple, yet so complex, it's most impossible, in linear words. The universe operates as a many scalar spheroidal mechanics, and no person's tongue and mind, can produce the accuracy of words necessary to describe this exact process mechanics. This is why I've stated, often, it requires new math, language and linguistics' systems, before we'll ever comprehend enough to effectively communicate about it.]

Further, another way to picture it might be considering the revolution of earth around the sun. Imagine it revolving the other way from another perspective, and consider the exact meeting point of both perspectives. What would be the result? [You see Nobody, the linguistics confuses again, as there are two perspectives of revolving the other way, i.e., real as the opposite exact path, and opposite, the exact opposite perspective. This keeps happening quite often___The Linguistics Problem.]

To me, it would be absolutely no motion at all without relative forces influencing the inertial frame. [Relative, i.e., abstract, influence not one damn thing. There are only real forces, or none at all___period.] The true "rest mass" remains zero, even if we include the "worlds within worlds" scenario, the membranes scenario, big-bang scenario, anti-universe scenario, or whatever scenario you feel toots your horn.

Sorry, but again you're choosing to use the standard quantum textbook definition of zero rest mass, which I keep stating is the heart of all science's BS... How in hell do you think a high intensity, directed laser, cuts diamonds, if photons don't have real absolute mass? The funny thing is, it's nothing but purified white laser photons, in that laser, so, something's sure as hell wrong with present physics zero rest mass, and the zero mass of photons, at any velocity, including c and true c... I rest my case___Light speaks for itself. "Hi, I'm light___I am true photonic mass...!!!"

If it don't got photon mass, how's it cut diamonds, Nobody...? Because, it sure as hell does...!!! Yet QM says the photon has no mass...? See the problem, yet...?

Lloyd