[mkirkpatrick]

When there is a no-thing,then the suggestion is prehaps then there is a some-thing,now
what that actually IS,is anybodies guess,If the choice were given,something in the hand,
would be better than no-thing in the hand,unless of course it were cash!



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I'm not looking for someone else's definitions, or looking to create a linguistics problem. It's my thread based on my thoughts, and therefore if you participate in the discussion it should make sense that you try to see things how I intend them to be portrayed. For example: if I say that infinitesimal means infinitely smaller without end, it is the means by which I am expressing myself to give you my picture. That should be accepted without repeatedly giving me alt definitions which erase part of my picture. Savvy? And hopefully from this point on, linguistics problems can be a thing of the past. Fair enough?

With that said, we can revert to your basic idea of an infinite spatial sphere that is motionless, spatially continues on without limit, and exists at near-zero kelvin to give it some room for the inward waves to contract, to see why your conclusions conflict with my reasoning based on my definitions.

The functioning of your model is non-local, meaning to me the contraction of in waves occurs "everywhere," because the infinity of space is near-zero kelvin and is refrained from contracting to a localized central point. If you follow me closely here, Lloyd, you might notice that there is no "in" for the waves to contract towards if there is no "out." The contraction would occur towards no point in particular, and that would negate any means possible for literal contraction towards any point.

In other words, because the finite measurements of particles are based on the motion of "part of the" near-zero-kelvin substrate of infinity ("everywhere" which I equate to nowhere), we have to know where and why infinity would only contract towards one particular area while the larger part of infinity remains motionless.

I hope you can realize from this response, that I am sincerely trying to work out our differences. Because, again, I like your idea, but get the impression that your infinite sphere is a localized phenomenon with a literal center. I don't think it can work that way, Lloyd, all jokes aside.

As for my own "abstract" remaining non-existent, that's the whole point to it. It remains abstract and never becomes real entities. The question of why there is something instead of nothing is resolved, and "existence" is rendered as the sensible - pertaining to sensory perception - within a black hole (non-dimensional point) where abstract time-dilations creates one set of abstract parameters bound by its event horizon where time stands absolutely still (defined as the fastest-possible speed/instantaneous). So it is a 4D model, but is 4D spacetime whereby space creates time and time creates space through potential energy tranfers in the form of the four forces. The unification of which is an absolute negation.

There is no difference in sensory perceptions if you only exist in an abstract reality, Lloyd. Except for the gateway to the realization that the universe has already overcome all obstacles that man is seemingly eternally bound by.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

When there is a no-thing,then the suggestion is prehaps then there is a some-thing,now what that actually IS,is anybodies guess,If the choice were given,something in the hand,would be better than no-thing in the hand,unless of course it were cash!
regards michael.

Let me translate your words to how I would have said it, Michael: Nothing is not a separate entity, for it fits in within everything. All by itself, Nothing cannot be placed next to everything for it needs everything to exist in the first place.

And you have an excellent point there too, when stating that Nothing may function just like money; money is not something we can eat, drink or enjoy for company and expect the communication to be anything more than an exchange of gloats. Money smooths the way we behave towards one and another, but it can lose its meaning too, for what is the value of money when you make a billion dollars a year (as some people do), and what is the value of money when lacking it (as many more people do) while living in a society that literally flows over from abundancy in so many ways? Money should not be supervaluable (when you don't have it) and close to worthless (when you have a hundred thousand times more of it than what you need).

P.S. Thank you Austintorn for the picture!

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Let me translate your words to how I would have said it, Michael: Nothing is not a separate entity, for it fits in within everything. All by itself, Nothing cannot be placed next to everything for it needs everything to exist in the first place.

And you have an excellent point there too, when stating that Nothing may function just like money; money is not something we can eat, drink or enjoy for company and expect the communication to be anything more than an exchange of gloats. Money smooths the way we behave towards one and another, but it can lose its meaning too, for what is the value of money when you make a billion dollars a year (as some people do), and what is the value of money when lacking it (as many more people do) while living in a society that literally flows over from abundancy in so many ways? Money should not be supervaluable (when you don't have it) and close to worthless (when you have a hundred thousand times more of it than what you need).

P.S. Thank you Austintorn for the picture!

Thank you most kindly,Fredrick,I like the post,money is worthless in itself,a wheelbarrow
full of German marks,would just about buy you a loaf in the last world war!

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sorry Nobody, but you are trying to build your own personal private language, to describe reality, and that is not logical, within the allowed rules of logic and science, so I have to dis-agree with your first paragraph, steadfastly... If everyone were allowed to design their own private language, the world would quickly run insane, just as Foucault and Derrida would love to have many believe, about their private language obsession, of post-modern dillusional relative ignorance___really their total ignorance of actual subject and substance material. The world of logic has had enough of private language re-interpretations of the real world into stupid relative non-existence___It ain't the way, and Einstein and none of physics' greats advocated any such ignorant courses. I'll take Einstein's absolute logic of point relativity measurement co-ordinates, and not others foolish substance relativity false interpretations of. Someday, the world will realize Einstein's unbounded finiteness, means nothing but absolute substance infinity, then the world's sanity will be allowed to return from post-modernism's ignorant insanity.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Lloyd,

I'm not looking for someone else's definitions, or looking to create a linguistics problem. [Yet, that is exactly what you are doing.] It's my thread based on my thoughts, and therefore if you participate in the discussion it should make sense that you try to see things how I intend them to be portrayed. [Not if I want to maintain sanity, thank-you.] For example: if I say that infinitesimal means infinitely smaller without end, it is the means by which I am expressing myself to give you my picture. [Sorry, but I have the right, as an American, not to accept false pictures of logic, from anyone, do I not? Remember, America is a country of liberty.] That should be accepted without repeatedly giving me alt definitions which erase part of my picture. Savvy? [No savvy. I can not respect wrong positions, no matter how scientifically framed, if framed scientifically incorrect, and illogical.] And hopefully from this point on, linguistics problems can be a thing of the past. [Linguistics problems, will always be there, until you admit them, and work them out, reasonably.] Fair enough? [Not hardly... I don't wish to throw away logic, and the laws of logic, even if you do, thank-you...]

With that said, we can revert to your basic idea of an infinite spatial sphere that is motionless, spatially continues on without limit, and exists at near-zero kelvin to give it some room for the inward waves to contract, to see why your conclusions conflict with my reasoning based on my definitions. [Ok, fine so far...]

The functioning of your model is non-local, meaning to me the contraction of in waves occurs "everywhere," because the infinity of space is near-zero kelvin and is refrained from contracting to a localized central point. [So, where's it going to contract___out? Come-on Nobody, contraction means___In!] If you follow me closely here, Lloyd, you might notice that there is no "in" for the waves to contract towards if there is no "out." [Wrong...] The contraction would occur towards no point in particular, and that would negate any means possible for literal contraction towards any point. [You better freeze some hard cidar, at 40 degrees below 0F. and see what happens. You may find all the alcahol moves to the center, just as the infinite universe would, at near 0k. Thermodynamics is a bit smarter at finding centers, than your false logic, as it just happens to happen, just this way. Check out all the recent low temperature physics of he3 motions___same physics, as universal near 0k physics' motions of FS. Why argue without studying the physics' experiments? They been doing them since 1935, and Nobel prizes have been given from 1935 to 1995-7 for just such low temperature physics' discoveries. The web offers thousands of just such physical evidence experiments. So, I'll take the physical evidence, thanks...]

In other words, because the finite measurements of particles are based on the motion of "part of the" near-zero-kelvin substrate of infinity ("everywhere" which I equate to nowhere)[this is your nowhere mistake], we have to know where and why infinity would only contract towards one particular area while the larger part of infinity remains motionless. [Why does he3 only move one atom thick, at a time, in certain low temperature physics' experiments? Thousands of physicists, around the world, are presently, trying to answer just such questions. I think I'll wait for their answers, since I so far know, this is what is happening. IMO, it's all one degree of motion freedom can do, it's just simply mechanically limited, at near 0k. At least, that's what all the experiments I've studied, show me, and think about it, would science not have to start at step one, then two, three, etc., etc,? If science starts at the lowest step, then it starts at one degree of freedom motion IN, as out wouldn't create a universe, now would it? Hasn't standard model foolishness of this very out fact, quite proven its own fallacy, by now? To me, if science has to start in the lowest degree of motion state, that motion state is absolutely required to be IN, to form any type of physical universe___It's just common sense logic, within the entire symmetry of the laws of physics___period.]

I hope you can realize from this response, that I am sincerely trying to work out our differences. [Nobody, I've noticed for quite some time, you are sincerely debating most issues, and I thank you, but the differences must be allowed to be completely logically played out, not partially.] Because, again, I like your idea, but get the impression that your infinite sphere is a localized phenomenon with a literal center. [No, I assure you it's not, and you of all people should realize this, as I posted more of my model, back and forth with you, in this thread, than with anyone else, or anywhere else, as you seemed to be the only one willing to go deep enough to understand the subtle true workings of the real universe.] I don't think it can work that way, Lloyd, all jokes aside. [You know, instead of how I have answered this post, I was going to explain the intricate differences of our fundamentals, of relativity, abstract, knowing, faith, belief, etc., etc., but that may have to wait for later, as this post is already getting over-crowded. Although, I do think much can be cleared up at the basic fundamental thought levels, as these differences are the most great, in most people, expecially as to linguistics, definitions and interpretations of.]

As for my own "abstract" remaining non-existent, that's the whole point to it. It remains abstract and never becomes real entities. [The only difference I have here is, abstract never is real, it's always the illusionary imagination of our beings, and nothing else, but I suppose that's very close to what you state, but I also put relative, belief, faith and many other ontic words in this same position, and herein probably lies much of our differences.] The question of why there is something instead of nothing is resolved, and "existence" is rendered as the sensible - pertaining to sensory perception - within a black hole (non-dimensional point) where abstract time-dilations creates one set of abstract parameters bound by its event horizon where time stands absolutely still (defined as the fastest-possible speed/instantaneous). [You see, here you go. For a while you do fine, then you drift off into the Alice In Wonderland rabbit hole of impossibilities.] So it is a 4D model,[Yes] but is 4D spacetime whereby space creates time[No] and time creates space[No] through potential energy tranfers in the form of the four forces.[Partially, yes, partially, no] The unification of which is an absolute negation. [Boy, you sure like devising new rabbit holes. No!!!]

There is no difference in sensory perceptions if you only exist in an abstract reality, Lloyd. [But nobody exists in an abstract reality, that's an absolute illusion, even for you, NO-body.] Except for the gateway to the realization that the universe has already overcome all obstacles that man is seemingly eternally bound by. [Everything Is eternally bound in the infinite fundamental substance___Forever!!!]

I'll respond to you later, on the absolute fundamentality of thought, ideas, knowing, and theorizing about the absoluteness of relative point co-ordinates and measurements of, as per how I understand Einstein, as I think he understood himself, as to science. I see Einstein as seeing his srt and grt as "The Absolutivity of Relativity", literally. He just wasn't able to go far enough into his own understanding, in the time he lived...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Man you got probs, Lloyd.

My interpretation of infinitesimal is based on one definition of infinitesimal, not on insanity, and yours on another. Which one should we use in my thread to portray my picture and the logical decrease of inward boundaries? I would think it logical to use mine, and that was the point I was making until you blew it way out of proportion.

Right to the bottom line, again, because you missed the point the first time around due to your bombardment to protect your stance.

"Come-on Nobody, contraction means___In"

In where, Lloyd? We're not talking about he3/4 or a drop of water, but the infinite universe contracting "in." Which point is in, in an infinite universe? Every point is in, and there would be too much counter pressure from every contractive point of infinity for there to be any literal contraction.

If you can't answer that, then all examples of localized contraction must remain abstract phenomena based on abstract time dilation according to the rate your nervous system processes information. Yes, the abstract neurological phenomenon.

There is no "in" or "out" in an infinite universe, only abstract measurements stringed together incrementally to give the impression of particles in motion through space. So, you are really taking the illusory evidence in lieu of the logical evidence, which I will take until further notice, thanks.

You state you don't conform to standard mainstream, but continue to advocate its means of assessing reality. You claim that bonding doesn't occur from negative charges being drawn toward two positive charges, "it's all repulsive," but then claim that all mechanics are "in" ward based. Seems to be more like "psych" ward to me, Lloyd.

Finally, as far as linguistics problems go, ask anyone in the general public if they think there is such a thing as "unbounded finiteness" or "absolutivity of relativity" and pay close attention to the laughter if you can manage to avoid the eggs. The above private language is an insult to both Einstein and logic, Lloyd, sorry.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Like I said Nobody, It's your linguistic private language problem, not mine... All logical scientists, and even children, know what "In" is, even if you don't...

[N0B0DY]

Yes, I can see that you're stuck, Lloyd, but it's part of the fourth-way process to push each other beyond stagnation.

A little thought experiment, Lloyd: if I asked you to do a headstand in outerspace, which way would you turn, up or down? Or is there logically no such thing as up or down in outerspace, just like there is no such thing as "in" or "out" in an infinite universe?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Yes, I can see that you're stuck, Lloyd, but it's part of the fourth-way process to push each other beyond stagnation.

A little thought experiment, Lloyd: if I asked you to do a headstand in outerspace, which way would you turn, up or down? Or is there logically no such thing as up or down in outerspace, just like there is no such thing as "in" or "out" in an infinite universe?

No, I'm not stuck Nobody, I'm just tired of dealing with your stupidity___Bye, bye...

[Infinite Consciousness]

Nobody Quote

R.P. Bibra,

I think ancient concepts of spiritual were based on the incapacity to observe the unseen. What was invisible to them then was coined spiritual as opposed to what was in plain sight. Sort of like lightning and the sun, not really knowing what they were, they referred to them as gods. The grand God of them all, creator of sun and lightning, would be the universe itself - the seen being God's body and the unseen being God's spirit, and both being different forms of the same "substance" that we are trying to figure out exactly what it consists of.

Some scientists laugh at theologians, and some theologians laugh at scientists. I've repeatedly asked both scientists and theologians to describe exactly what the material world and spiritual world was made of respectively, and both to date have been hard-pressed to come up with an accurate answer. Yet, they continue to laugh. End Quote

Nobody Quote

That's my intention, Austin. To go deeper than anyone has gone before into what the curtain is.

Everyone thinks they are right, at some point, and will only be wrong when they realize it. At which time they will be sure they are right until they realize that they are wrong again.

Does the universe breathe, and is the universe conscious? Why not, if "particles" can function together at any distance

End Quote


Nobody and LG, re the Absolute. The real Self which is Pure Awareness cannot be the object of knowledge. It is the Absolute and as it is Pure Awareness - only by becoming one with "IT" - can we know "IT."

We can never know pure awareness as an object of knowledge - we can only know that our Self is Pure Awareness - and then merge in this Self and be Pure Awareness - Nobody as long as you are separate from your Self which is Pure Awareness - you can never know Pure Awareness - you can never go behind the curtain until you know what the curtain is - "Man Know Thyself" - the curtain is our not knowing and not being one with our Self - the Absolute - Pure Awareness.

Because we are not one with our Self as the Absolute i.e. the Pure Awareness we think that every-thing is no-thing and that is all there is - because we do not know and are consequently not one with our Self as the Absolute i.e. Pure Awareness within all things and without which no-thing exists. Pure Awareness is the bodiless - no-thing - through which by its expression all things exist. When it withdraws the illusion of things which it manifests are no more.

In other words, the no-thing is Pure Awareness it is Absolute - it is our very own real Self. Not knowing that we are this Self is the curtain - and being one with this Self removes the curtain. Absolute is complete within "Itself" ; whole or entire; perfect, per se anything less is not Absolute. That which exists - by Itself - of Itself - and in Itself. Our Self is the Absolute - Pure Awareness - i .e Unchangeable Permanence.

The life of the spirit (behind the curtain) begins not with the theoretical exposition of the spiritual science but by a practical demonstration on the spiritual plane of the spirit -current made manifest. Here the invisible and inaudible life-stream is made both visible and audible to the spirit within, converting the atheist into a theist in the true sense of the term.

It is imparting the life-impulse and making It throb in every pore of the body. This coming back of the soul to the realization of her true nature and rising into Universal or Cosmic awareness beyond the walls of finitude is true resurrection or coming to a new birth and a new life. To die in the body while living, is to live in the spirit.

The life of the flesh and the life of the spirit are two distinct and separate things, exclusive of each other. This is the way it is said, He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it. CHRIST