Hi all, been on the road, so having trouble making connections...
Nobody, we as humans can never be the one, but we certainly can be aware of the one, especially when we realize the one differentiated to become two, whether aware of itself or not, the fact remains, it differentiated to become the many of one. Now why would I insist on the absoluteness of oneness into the many? And how could such a mechanic be fundamentally possible, of which the entire universe is built from?
The simplicity of the answer lies in our perception abilities. Usually if one sees a solid divided infinitesimally into the many, the perceptive training of minds, see this phenomena as irreversible, when in fact it's not. Also, usually if one sees the many divided infinitesimal many solids recombined into the one, the perceptive training of minds, see this phenomena as irreversible, when in fact it's not, again. Now, why is this the clue to the absolute fundamental mechancis of the entire universe?
I think it is you Nobody who stated that to see the universe as one, would make the vision most incomprehensible, and true enough this is, but only in one sense. That sense is the fact that it is quite overwhelming to first witness such a vision, and may take years to render it comprehensible, but it is possible, I assure you, as I have done just that, over the years. This is where your differentiation comes in, as because, when one sees themselves as the one, it's like being the so-to-speak "god". Now, when one takes this omniscient position, how does one re-render his sane consciousness back to sensible differentiation, between the one and the many, again? Well, it ain't easy, but in order to make human sense, anyone must come from the most human and humble moral position possible, for the world to accept your ideas, as no-one wants to listen to a "god"___They all want to be "god", whether male or female___Yet nobody is or can be. This position is not open, as Fredrick has pointed out, as it requires the support of the human family. Just as many have said, if Christ returned, no-one would listen, and would even stone him___Most likely true___The everyone wants to be "god" syndrome.
Now, as to the infinite/infinitesimal and the absolutivity of relativity, just for you Nobody. First, it should be pointed out from all the information agreed to by most all posters, in this thread, the position of a nothing point is impossible, therefore; that leaves only the absolute particle position of the smallest infinitesimal point, i.e., relative polar or Cartesian point co-ordinates, thus, the absolutivity of relativity. No matter how relative/abstract a point or position, it absolutely must remain fundamental particle point fact. The absolute relative abstract can never be reduced to nothing, not even the abstract relative family or color point of Fredrick's. The mind producing the abstracts is a factual particle set of absolute points of real fundamental matter___Always, eternally. This doesn't mean the mind is eternal, just the fact that its composite parts___Are!!!
As to the infinite/infinitesimal I mentioned above and above, the physical state changing abilities of fundamental matter have no bounds of confinement, as Nobody likes to try put them in. They are free to divide/multiply/transmute to all infinitesimal/infinite de-combinations/re-combinations, just as is his biological bacteria example. There are no limits to the number of infinitesimals, since as the universe becomes full of infinitesimals of the infinite, they just simply transform/transmutate in the opposite direction, toward the one. All this scientific process is controlled by the one simple fact of temperature variances, on the fundamental matters concerned. The one into the many, or the many into the one, as many times as quantumly possible, without any quantum or macro limits. Then, and only then, when the fundamental universal has no quantum restrictions, except the one degree of motion freedom, does the universe work, and work quite perfectly___All on its own.
The problem of perception has always been with breadth and focus of vision. The larger the breadth of vision, the less the concentrated focus of the small, possible. And, the greater the concentration of focus of the small, the less of the breadth of vision, possible. Everyone must combine, these two perceptions as one over-all perception, in order to see the true fundamental workings of our real universe, at all levels...
The one mechanical universe is mighty capable...
Lloyd
lg; you are the most vocal spokesperson of the Vedanta phi. Ones’ who subscribe to this system of ‘thought’ would gladly accept you as their goodwill ambassador.love®ards.ls.
It is sort of like taking the analogous boundary of a balloon as a literal balloon that would pop, when the boundary represent radiation that should continue to expand. Yours doesn't seem to imply the existence of a singularity.
I had mentioned to Lloyd that dark matter and energy should be linked to other universes, and that all forces should be considered electromagnetic - including gravity - though range is all-important because the bulk strength is required to bind particles.
Three hours later...just one more thing. You had said that the pyramid at the top represents unification of forces, whereas the bottom represents the reality of separate forces, but at the top I remember you saying something about carrying the shape of the pyramid throughout all levels. My question is, at the extreme north does the pyramidal shape remain? If not, what shape would that supreme pole have?
Great readings, Nobody, indeed informing me. I use the image of the balloon as well on the other side of our materialized universe, but instead of a reasonable limit experienced on the outside, I place a reason on the inside of the balloon. Consider the following: six people stand back to back and all take one step forward and then stretch out their arms to grab the arms of the two people next to them: a circle of arms holding arms then exists.
Repeat this, while each time taking larger steps. All experiments end up with the same result (arms holding arms) except for the last try. In one spot, or two, or more, the arms do not reach the other arms anymore, and the circle is broken. Possibly one body moved to the right to grab that second arm, while in that movement pulling the body along that was already firmly connected, which then in turn becomes out of reach for the body next to it. This movement outward cannot be reversed and materialization starts to occur, a falling out, from an initially perfect situation. The reason for this to happen is found on the inside — deciding to take bigger and bigger steps — yet the result occurs due to the phenomenon of nothing: arms not connecting to arms anymore. It is not the needle that made the balloon pop, it was the occurrence of the hole that made the balloon pop. The needle only provided the way for the hole to occur.
I personally do not want to consider other universes. Even when they exist, their existence does not help explain why ours exists. Other than that, sure, go ahead and create as many universes as you please. Yet a self-contained reason needs to exist for each and every universe, so it might as well just be only one.
The pyramid shows transition from the bottom larger frame to in top the smaller frame of four positions. This change of size must effect how the aspects of each field are considered. In the color pyramid — and having used light and reflection as the two sets to explain it — I'd put light itself at the top, as the fastest thing in our universe, and capable of prisming into the other colors. Light is a real thing, yet right above it I'd put the word 'color' to give the entire pyramid its name. The abstract is even more unified than light is, and deserves therefore the upper position.
The pyramid of directions contains North, South, East, and West, but the top is not a specific direction, rather it is the name tag 'direction.' Still, if you wish, right underneath the top sits a direction that is quite close to singular: it is the direction where we all came from — the direction from the Big Bang (or the Big Conflict, or the original direction, or you name it). Other directions on that scale indeed exist, but are not of immediate interest to us.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
The good news is that you've made your position clearer in your last message, but the bad news is the picture changed from the one I had seen before. I had thought that there was an unobservable connection that remained when the stick, balloon or, now, the circle of people broke - that an unobservable person would take the place of the separated people, or more people would be added because they represent radiation to begin with. That connection, other universes, to me, would be required to explain the existence of any universe.
I try to consider as many angles as possible to verify if the mechanics work or not, follow implications to verify what the boundaries represent, and implications to verify what is within and outside of the boundaries. This way, I can be certain about possibilities, probabilities, improbabilities and impossibilites.
We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here; we can't place a finite model within infinite space, because the infinite counter pressure would crush the model to a singularity fubar - a model that would have no business being there to begin with because of the exterior pressure; we can't place a finite quantity with an infinite quality within "nothing" or within infinite space, for the same reasons above; and we can't place an infinite model within infinite space while retaining literal motion, thermo/hydro/aerodynamics, because it is impossible for it to have the required localized directional quality for particles to form and bind.
Even in my abstract model, I have to be aware of implications that don't allow certain mechanics, and for this reason I disagree with Lloyd's in waves being the cause for out waves. Otherwise I would have agreed to Lloyd's mechanics, because they do work and conform to your model, the standard model, and to Lynds' model.
Like Lloyd said, there is no need for the one to become the many and for the many to reintegrate to become the one; and, similarly, there is no need for in waves to produce out waves or out waves to produce in waves, as depicted in the "Space and Motion" site. His justification is that it is all one, and mine that it is all none. The bottom line being that we agree that the universal state is not in continuous motion, as the ancients thought, but is in an absolutely motionless state.
The all-important difference, to me, is that the abstract motion is the result of the perspectives of monopoles that represent the absolute center of all observable dipoles. We can have one non-existent state - monopole; and we can have an infinite number of monopolar centers without changing anything, and this way all paradoxes, even ones that haven't been discovered yet, are resolved.
"I'd put light itself at the top, as the fastest thing in our universe, and capable of prisming into the other colors. Light is a real thing, yet right above it I'd put the word 'color' to give the entire pyramid its name. The abstract is even more unified than light is, and deserves therefore the upper position.
Still, if you wish, right underneath the top sits a direction that is quite close to singular."
From what I gather from the above, light would have to be the singular abstract. Otherwise there seems to be a flip flop that is confusing me.
What is at the uppermost position? What shape is it, if not singular? And what does it represent?
Secret Formula
6. MVEMJSUNP (What does it mean? hint:SUN)
Still working on this one Austintorn.
It may remain difficult to see the overall picture, Nobody. Juts like the phychological picture of seeing a vase or two faces (one black, the other white) makes for longer lasting views of what is otherwise a not so interesting picture, the same way it makes for good conversation to find the positions in which we appear to have thé answer, and then to find others who have found thé answer also, but then somewhere else. The uppermost position in the pyramid is the abstract, since there is nothing as unified as the abstract.
The pyramid shapes found from ancient people kind of show the dilemma, for they do not all have the same shape. Some have a pointed top, others have a flat top, while the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan has a rounded top. The reason for variation in top is that the bottom does not just have four corners, but also the option itself of which corner to go into if you, it (matter), or they (group) have to make that choice. That option is still part of the whole at the top as well.
The picture of six people walking away from each other and losing touch and then materializing into independent entities is only a picture about the materialization aspect. This does not mean there are no other 'people' — unmaterialized — remaining. I believe dark matter is a perfect fit for what is furthermore a perfectly imperfect universe. But there are some things to remark about dark matter, and I don't think the calculations are currently right, so I cannot go there with confidence.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Nobody, your skepticism is quite self-confusing. Not only do you confuse your own ideas, but mine as well. I in no way stated, as you have stated, I stated below, so I will proceed to set the record straight, again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here;[Absolutely agreed.] we can't place a finite model within infinite space, because the infinite counter pressure would crush the model to a singularity fubar - a model that would have no business being there to begin with because of the exterior pressure;[Absolutely dis-agreed. Nobody, this is not science, it's your own personal opinion. There exists no empirical evidence, what-so-ever, showing any infinite counter pressure. As I said, if you studied a bit of low temperature physics, you may start to understand the major mistakes, in your thinking. In case you haven't noticed, the finite universe does exist inside an infinite universe___This is absolute empirical fact of simple observation, and any sensible logic of the large and the small. The one degree of freedom, is the descriptive empirical logic of infinity, only, and not of our finite universe, which has many degrees of freedom. It is only infinity, which is bound by the one degree of freedom, as only this description makes infinity, infinity. Any other definition, such as the observer position ability, to look in and out, creates the more than one degree of freedom. If an observer position of true infinity is made, then only the one degree of freedom, looking/traveling in is possible, as any other observer position of looking out is a multiple perspective observer position of seeing in and out, thus more than one degree of freedom, and required to be of a finite perspective. So, what's left?___Infinity is the absolute matter state universe, which is absolutely required to create the finite state universe. It's a closed logic loop absolute reality, or a completed universal tautology. Sorry, Nobody, but infinity is the, all and only, absolute matter state, of all reality.] we can't place a finite quantity with an infinite quality within "nothing" or within infinite space, for the same reasons above;[Wrong again.] and we can't place an infinite model within infinite space while retaining literal motion, thermo/hydro/aerodynamics, because it is impossible for it to have the required localized directional quality for particles to form and bind.[Wrong again.]
Even in my abstract model, I have to be aware of implications that don't allow certain mechanics, and for this reason I disagree with Lloyd's in waves being the cause for out waves.[Infinity's one degree of freedom is absolutely required to produce only in waves, first___otherwise, it's finiteness producing infinity's one degree of freedom, and we scientifically know this to be impossible. Get your physics straight, please...] Otherwise I would have agreed to Lloyd's mechanics, because they do work and conform to your model, the standard model, and to Lynds' model.[Good thinking...]
Like Lloyd said, there is no need for the one to become the many and for the many to reintegrate to become the one;[No I didn't. I said they do that very thing.] and, similarly, there is no need for in waves to produce out waves or out waves to produce in waves, as depicted in the "Space and Motion" site.[But, as I state, the cold thermo-hydro-dynamic in-waves are required first, to later produce the em-out-waves of all models.] His justification is that it is all one, and mine that it is all none.[And here you contradict, as usual. A thousand times, in this thread, you have admitted something is necessary, and yet you state none___again. Just as you stated above; "We all know that we can't place a literal existence within non-existence, no explanation needed here;" and then this "none" contradiction of yourself? Which is it? You can't have your cake, and eat it too...] The bottom line being that we agree that the universal state is not in continuous motion, as the ancients thought, but is in an absolutely motionless state.[False.]
Come on Nobody, a child offers better logic...
Lloyd
__________________ "To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
From what I gather from the above, light would have to be the singular abstract. Otherwise there seems to be a flip flop that is confusing me.
What is at the uppermost position? What shape is it, if not singular? And what does it represent?
Light has a dual property of wave and particle, and while it is in top position it still reveals a duality. The uppermost position, therefore, is the abstract position with right underneath it whatever comes closest to being singular (but what cannot be singular).
In the pyramid of direction, I mentioned the direction of the Big Bang as the 'singular' direction for all our history, but viewed from other parts of the universe, our direction would be incorrect (for them). The pyramid of direction offers another singular answer much closer to home as well. With East, North, West, and South as corners, the singular direction of gravity would fit perfectly fine in top as well.
Good to hear from you, Lloyd. How about trying to see if we can build a pyramid of hydrodynamics? I'd probably put that concept itself in the middle of the pyramid, or would it be better to make that hydraulics?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Maximum Visualization Energetic Movement Join Sunrise Uninterrupted Normal Path
(hint: Super Urgent Neuters)
Austintorn, I am expecting you will reveal the words that are correct (or stating you will do so when none of the above are correct), yes?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I wanted to know what the absolute point of the north would represent. So pertaining to a planar top, it would be the absolute center of the plane; and the other two examples would be the uppermost point. The abstract would fit in very well, and if we can see that this point carries throughout all points of an infinite model, we wouldn't have as many seeming disagreements.
As for dark matter, I think the whole of astrophysics has to be rethought to allow for undetectible spectrums that have a cumulative effect on the universe. It is thought that dark matter and energy have to be elsewhere, and antimatter has to be elsewhere and disproportionate, but if the universe is considered to function fractally and fractional quanta are seen as the building blocks of all particles, then we can unite all forces and retain universal symmetry. As a result the mechanics, although they work observably and theoretically for finite models, have to change to allow for matter and antimatter to annihilate always and render time dilation as the sole cause for breaking symmetry.
In effect, all observations are after-the-fact and are the result of detectible energies - there is a required amount of energy to produce detectible particles and, conversely, a required amount of mass to produce observable effects. Dark matter, energy, and antimatter (contrary to popular beliefs, is the same as dark matter), are just that, unobservable. The ingredients, like the bulk of gravity, is neglected because the effectual interactions occur instantaneously and infinitesimally, and therefore only the cumulative effects through time dilation are taken into account. In other words, if infinities were accounted for, there would be no questions to answer for regarding dark matter. From the super-galactic to the sub-quantum, electromagnetism is the root of all forces and abstract time dilation is the root cause for electromagnetism. So wave/particle duality must be probablistic, based on a paritcular set of laws that persist to exist according to atomic decay.
Ultimately, the singularity that is never reached is the absolute universal state - the absolute central point of existence is non-existence.
Linear Mode
