[N0B0DY]

Hello again, Fredrick.

I thought I would throw in a few cryptograms last response, because judging from your private posts to me re your model I got the impression you may like mysteries or puzzles.

To me, working on what I refer to as an infinite jigsaw puzzle reveals a story that governs our sense of reality. Of what life means, its origins, and its future. Of course it is based on evidence, but then we take this evidence and extend it as a means to its end picture which is greater than the last picture created in our minds.

That scientist that I made reference to a while back, with the resume a mile long, worked in a field that doesn't get much more "mainstream." Yet, he scientifically proved the existence of atlantis, garden of eden, noah's flood, the meaning behind the pyramids, etc. All scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and pertain to a story that would make even a hardcore atheistic cry foul.

If you have found the toe, it has to stand for something that pertains to the story that is proven to yourself based on the scientific evidence. Otherwise, the scientific story is wrong. Which is fine, but then you are required as a human being to find a better or more accurate story to apply the toe to.

My persistent reference to the sides of the north is my funny way of pushing the model to its absolute end, so I can find a place for it. If you want to call your model an abstract presentation of abiogenesis and evolution, it can have a place.

I don't know why you chose my thread to submit your model to begin with, but my mind is geared to discover what reality is based on what prevents any reality from occurring. If nothing prevents it, then it is happening "now" and I have proven to myself that this reality is a mere gleam of an infinite number of imperfect replications on the road to perfection.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I don't know why you chose my thread to submit your model to begin with, but my mind is geared to discover what reality is based on what prevents any reality from occurring. If nothing prevents it, then it is happening "now" and I have proven to myself that this reality is a mere gleam of an infinite number of imperfect replications on the road to perfection.

Yes, I love engima's and other kinds of unresolved mysteries, yet at the same time, I am not much into solving particular mysteries perse; I try to focus, as I think you do, on what is the most important aspect that helps deliver a better understanding of the whole. I chose this thread because understanding the phenomenon of nothing is the first step in understanding how everything fits together. The name of the thread — Theory of Nothing — got my attention the first time I saw it.

What has been quite interesting for me was to follow how you and Lloyd were, from my point of view, saying many similar things, while appearing to disagree with each other a lot; your and his focus were just in different spots, but the overall pictures you presented to each other were not truly in conflict. I enjoyed reading how you came to more or less agreeing terms, while at the same time, you may still feel you are disagreeing. The contributions made by others, and hopefully mine as well, only added some excellent spice to us all giving a spot of importance (or not) to the phenomenon of Nothing.

As you know, Nobody, negation plays an important role in the pyramidic model, and that is also the spot where I place my focus — not on something new to uncover, but on all that already is. Even with a perfectly executed TOE engimas will remain, for TOEs are only overall vehicles, they don't tell us the number of grains of sand on the beach, Wednesday, three o'clock. In the same spirit, I like to mention that I regard our reality as the highest possible reality. Even when on the other side of the material screen we find god, several gods or just our beloved deceased ones — existing in a more pure fashion than we exist here — this would still be the highest level of reality. I cherish it, and some of the places I do focus are the spots where we are not dealing well with what we've got. I don't need to make a list of all the aspects of early 21st Century problems, but I would rather see resolutions there than reading about scientific proof of engimas that have been pleasurable for many generations. Engimas are part of life, and when resolved, new ones will pop up. It is no enigma to me why I chose this thread: you made it too attractive not to participate.

[Fredrick]

Talking about nothing (heard recently from) ...

Lloyd's information ánd interests may prove to be the lithmus test of this pyramidic model, for if it is possible to place his delivery of infinite fundamental cold scalar waves producing all the finite hot scalar waves inside a comprehensive pyramid of hydrodynamics, we'd be home-free.

I am not the specialist when it comes down to hydrodynamics, so would you, Lloyd, please, try your hand on such a pyramid? In this case, too, we are looking for a generic-specific pair (for instance, hydrodynamic vs. its specific conditions), a transformational pair (for instance, hot vs. cold scalar waves?) plus a grounded oppositional pair (Sorry, I have only general ideas here, such as for instance pressure vs. volume or something like that; other ideas may be more suiting, Lloyd). From your postings, I know you have no problems unifying the various aspects of hydrodynamics. Please, try your hands on this pyramidic delivery and see if you can make it a suitable model.

Lloyd, I sincerely hope the hydrodynamic pyramid can clinch this model as suitable for every delivery — as long as it is a generic delivery. If you know the model, you know there should be six specific designations (with two of them being quite generic), or maybe it should be seven (with seven being the surprise)?

[N0B0DY]

Hi Fredrick,

I think aerodynamics would be more appropriate in explaining Lloyd's FS, but pertaining to the toe it would only be possible mechanically if the universe were to be finite - even his explanations of finitude within infinite space don't work for the aforementioned reasons that I gave regarding the contractive pressure of near-zero k. Though, remember, it is only my picture and we each have our own.

It would work very well with your model, assuming that your model is finite or an abstract model relating to a finite amount of conservable energy and matter. Again, I would say, yes, you have solved it or realized that it has been solved for quite sometime with gravity where you say it is, but my mind remains on the outside of the pyramid for personal reasons pertaining to your private inquistition of the king of the north and the sides of the north.

You had mentioned that there may be a connection to the pyramidal structures of the past, and I would say that you are right again. The story is one of quick manifest destiny vs the slow evolutionary process required to thoroughly learn about earthly toys before playing with them.

It also very much has to do with politics, religion, money games, and astronomical scientific advancements. The pyramids are mirrored representations of the story in the sky, with the astronomical events governing earthly events. I could write a book on the very accurate relationship between "heaven and earth" alone, needless to say it is a very long story.

I can appreciate your enthusiasm and the vote of confidence, but I'm more of the "slow evolutionary" type and oppose advancements without knowledge of consequences. Not to instigate ill-regard for your efforts and research, but the king of the north collapses the whole pyramid by attempting to build another pyramid atop his position.

I'm fairly sure this is not what you have in mind when utilizing the pyramid model, but like you said we have to go where the evidence takes us. So I have to rest assured knowing that the universe has already overcome itself by keeping record of the effects of all actions, which exceeds man's capability.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I think aerodynamics would be more appropriate in explaining Lloyd's FS, but pertaining to the toe it would only be possible mechanically if the universe were to be finite - even his explanations of finitude within infinite space don't work for the aforementioned reasons that I gave regarding the contractive pressure of near-zero k. Though, remember, it is only my picture and we each have our own.

It would work very well with your model, assuming that your model is finite or an abstract model relating to a finite amount of conservable energy and matter.

I can appreciate your enthusiasm and the vote of confidence, but I'm more of the "slow evolutionary" type and oppose advancements without knowledge of consequences. Not to instigate ill-regard for your efforts and research, but the king of the north collapses the whole pyramid by attempting to build another pyramid atop his position.

I may share even more, then, with Lloyd than what I already expected. If I recall the pyramid of colors in which light exists as one of reflection and as one as source, then I must conclude that finite exists within the infinite. Reflection can only occur as finite, since we need a border object for light to be reflected. At the same time, light itself may continue unobstructed into the infinite. Both finite and infinite have their place within that pyramid, and I would say Lloyd's scalar waves do too.

Trying to recreate what is an overall empire onto itself in an incorrect position would of course only lead to a collapse. I hope you are not trying to tell me that I am building a new unnecessary pyramid while placing it in an incorrect location too? I don't mind being compared to the King of the North, but he appears to not know what to do correctly.

[N0B0DY]

"At the same time, light itself may continue unobstructed into the infinite. Both finite and infinite have their place within that pyramid, and I would say Lloyd's scalar waves do too."

This would be the contradiction, Fredrick, when we are trying to remain logically consistent. If light itself may continue unobstructed, what would be the cause exactly for obstructing part of it?

Lloyd's scalar waves are fine, but in an infinite universe there would be no point in particular for the in waves to contract - which is what his proposition is. If near-zero k has a contractive nature, and near-zero k exists to infinity, all points would contract toward every point. Do you see how that would be impossible?

So I have to remain an advocate of absolute zero, absolute speed, with the standing waves being virtual according to the time it takes for observations and categorizations to be made.

Which, I know, leads to the question of "how can you exist to categorize things if you don't really exist?" It is like proteins being required to make DNA and DNA being required to make proteins. We have to think in terms of the last effect being the first cause, and RNA being the abstract means of producing both.

The point about the king of the north building another pyramid was that even too much is never enough for someone who wants to be king. Desire itself preventing the negation of the ego.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

This would be the contradiction, Fredrick, when we are trying to remain logically consistent. If light itself may continue unobstructed, what would be the cause exactly for obstructing part of it?

Lloyd's scalar waves are fine, but in an infinite universe there would be no point in particular for the in waves to contract - which is what his proposition is. If near-zero k has a contractive nature, and near-zero k exists to infinity, all points would contract toward every point. Do you see how that would be impossible?

So I have to remain an advocate of absolute zero, absolute speed, with the standing waves being virtual according to the time it takes for observations and categorizations to be made.

Which, I know, leads to the question of "how can you exist to categorize things if you don't really exist?" It is like proteins being required to make DNA and DNA being required to make proteins. We have to think in terms of the last effect being the first cause, and RNA being the abstract means of producing both.

The point about the king of the north building another pyramid was that even too much is never enough for someone who wants to be king. Desire itself preventing the negation of the ego.

Allow me to use my own words here, Nobody, and make this discussion be about the nature of restriction, or of limitation. Let me then first emphasize that science may be based on repeatable results, but our reality in its most important feature — the universe — is not. Science itself is restricted, limited, for it cannot recreate the universe. The only 'success' physicists may achieve is getting so close to recreating the Big Bang that our local environment may get damaged, a situation by some described as unavoidable — for man does not know where to stop — and described by others as inconceivable — for the options available to us to examine our environment are infinite. If we do not have to repeat Lloyd's delivery, then it can indeed take place (have taken place). Recreating a new additional limiting standard in our universe is not possible, but that does not take the old one away. As such, he shows that he has a toe (and don't we all?).

Light can move unobstructed at any time, but doesn't; there are obstacles that change light. So we have two versions that are correct at the same time: emitted light and reflected light. I would say never the twain shall meet, but that would be a contradiction then too, for it is the meeting point at which we find the distinction.

About the King of the North — thank you for sharing this — an important delivery.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And the battle of ideas continues. Nobody, try this formula on for size; 1I/iF=E; i.e., One infinity divided by infinitesimal finiteness equals everything. After thinking about all our differences, I found this formula in my older notes of economics and physics maths. It's just a general mathematics formula, yet it offers a possible directional solution, of the infinite into the finite reality. See what you all think...

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"At the same time, light itself may continue unobstructed into the infinite. Both finite and infinite have their place within that pyramid, and I would say Lloyd's scalar waves do too."

This would be the contradiction, Fredrick, when we are trying to remain logically consistent. If light itself may continue unobstructed, what would be the cause exactly for obstructing part of it? [Nobody, this would be just simple photonic decay.]

Lloyd's scalar waves are fine, but in an infinite universe there would be no point in particular for the in waves to contract [Ah, I beg to differ. One must first realize infinity has, and must have, a shape. It matters not to me what shape you give it, but the fact remains, it possesses a 2-D or 3-D shape, to exist, and we know it exists, so any and all shapes have centers, and further, have and possesses distances from the outside outer most point to the inside inner most point. This can not be denyed, by any logical person. If such a picture be true, then contraction from outside to inside is certainly a real possibilit, is it not?] - which is what his proposition is. [True enough.] If near-zero k has a contractive nature, and near-zero k exists to infinity, all points would contract toward every point. [And what's wrong with that?___As long as the total infinite contraction is also toward a center of its own infinity, also?] Do you see how that would be impossible? [No, no, no, highly possible, and actual. Just imagine any shape, say an apple, contracting to its every infinitesimal point, yet also contracting to its own center. Infinity would be no different than the apple example. Science, and correspondence logic, applies the same to finiteness, as to infinity. And why should it not?]

So I have to remain an advocate of absolute zero, absolute speed, with the standing waves being virtual according to the time it takes for observations and categorizations to be made. [Nobody, would you please study just a few low temperature experiments, so you may learn that near absolute zero does not create absolute speed, but actually the reverse, of a very slow velocity of atomic action___Bose/Einstein condensate, Hau slowed photons, or very slow moving he3 atoms, etc., etc.]

Which, I know, leads to the question of "how can you exist to categorize things if you don't really exist?" [Nobody, quit dreaming your abstract self, from the true positions of absoluteness.] It is like proteins being required to make DNA and DNA being required to make proteins. [No___except, only when you accept such foolish Zeno impossibilities.] We have to think in terms of the last effect being the first cause, and RNA being the abstract means of producing both. [All sensible philosophers have long since realized, Zeno is nothing but bs philosophy.]

The point about the king of the north building another pyramid was that even too much is never enough for someone who wants to be king. Desire itself preventing the negation of the ego.

Nobody, "Infinity is the negation of negation." Hegel

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I don't believe a big bang is possible, first off. It is, to me, a brainwashing attempt by a Christian scientist to concur with biblical renderings, and this includes the inflationary era. It only works if the universe is finite, space included, because then we can have a contractive point of reference and an expansive point of reference. But it is logically fallicious, because we are then concluding that existence exists inside non-existence.

If we, conversely, think in terms of an infinite space creating finite matter through contraction, it is illogical because infinite space would be contractive everywhere which would negate contraction anywhere. Therefore infinite space would be motionless, in thermal equilibrium at absolute zero - which is synonymous to being non-existent.

I think the point about the light was overlooked a bit. Absorptivity equals emissivity, so what exactly is the cause for the obstacles if not merely abstract dilation of amplitudes and wavelengths?

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

The formula can be likened to POK's 1/0, imo. The can't literally be divided or else it would not remain one. There would be space between the infinitesimal particles. The one requires us to close the gaps between particles to get our one absolute, static state.

This is why I mentioned the difference between absolute and infinite. The absolute one (exterior boundary) and absolute zero (interior point) don't exist, so the infinite fractional functioning of relativity in between must be abstract.

If you want to make believe that the universe has a shape just to say it exists that's up to you, Lloyd, but that is believing in things not logically verified. When we invoke infinity we have to follow the implications, and infinity violates the mechanics by which you say is the cause for the shape. So I would have to disagree and say, no, the universe is formless because it doesn't really exist. People just think it does. The outermost and innermost point are really just pulled right out of a magic hat, Lloyd. So I would also have to say, no, contraction from the outside is impossible unless your universal model is finite. Infinite doesn't work, and both finite and infinite combined don't work. The universe is not an apple.

I've studied many experiements also, Lloyd, and all are misleading. Yet I never concluded that near-zero experiements produce absolute speed. I said I advocate absolute zero equals absolute speed, as well as absolute energy, mass, etc.. And the experiments done by Hau were likened to the photons disappearing, which supports my view. One compared it, if you remember, to a train disappearing into a thread and reappearing out of the other side of the thread. And the DNA, RNA and proteins are basic to biology, Lloyd. My point was that RNA was pulled out of a magic hat as well.

Nobody, "Infinity is the negation of negation." Hegel

Good point here, Lloyd. It much better depicts what I was saying. If the negation of the ego is negated, then the ego knows no bounds. Which is a tad dangerous for life forms, imo.