[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I've done a few low-temperature experiments and a few high-energy experiments, like the one in message 1, and you seem to gloss over my statements that agree with your position to a localized point. Perhaps, judging by your statement: "good thinking," you just want me to agree with everything you say.

The one-degree of freedom is pulled straight out of a magic hat, Lloyd. I'm not kidding. Empirical and theoretical science can only take us so far, where we then have to use philosophy to extend evidence to render logical conclusions so that science can remain as self-corrective as it is. So your continuous proclamations of absolute reality being a result of the logical freedom of infinity to produce finiteness has no affect on me.

If you can explain in detail exactly how your mechanics can localize a universal center within an infinite model, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time because I know what you mean by contraction, it's not like you're explaining a complex concept in Chinese, and the in-wave mechanics don't work. There can be no in waves first because there can be no first to the absolute. Perhaps when you get your philosophy straight, you will see that I have my physics straight, Lloyd. There is an infinite difference between the infinite and the absolute.

Infinity pertains to space and eternity pertains to time, and both require localized motion to be measured; the absolute is motionless because it is non-local and as a result all points become the same point, or more accurately all points are the same point. And since that absolute point doesn't and can't ever exist, spacetime and localized concentrations of mass/energy must remain illusory abstractions.

Perhaps you might consider studying the zeroth law, zero-point energy, and zero rest mass more thoroughly to grasp the context of this thread, Lloyd.

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I had first thought that the SUN thing had to do with the days of the week in another language, but then realized it has more to do with planets.

Just in case your brain starts to get an itch. I know the feeling from our private convos.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Fredrick,

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.

Ultimately, the singularity that is never reached is the absolute universal state - the absolute central point of existence is non-existence.

Nobody, the absolute North in the pyramid of directions is one of the four corners, it's opposite being South. The absolute center of the plane is either 'without directions' (as in non-existing) or they belong to the direction as described with 'gravitational direction' (down) and 'Big Bang direction' (indicating the originating spot for us/earth/solar system/milky way).

Thanks for the SUN directions. I'll have another look!

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

Maybe you could post a picture like Austin had in the other thread, and indicate where things are exactly. I had thought that the north followed around from 4 different angles, but you're saying that the top position represents the singularity that unifies and separates forces via gravity, right? Yet the gravitational force is essentially a unifying and separating force of a grey body because black bodies don't exist?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Fredrick,

Maybe you could post a picture like Austin had in the other thread, and indicate where things are exactly. I had thought that the north followed around from 4 different angles, but you're saying that the top position represents the singularity that unifies and separates forces via gravity, right? Yet the gravitational force is essentially a unifying and separating force of a grey body because black bodies don't exist?

With possibly a modification here and there, I think Austintorn is doing an excellent job, Nobody.

The North pole has indeed the qualities of the top (as does the South pole), but North is not the top, just one of the two well-grounded corners.

[N0B0DY]

I'm sure he is, but that's not the point, Fredrick. The tip point up there at the top of the pyramid, that you had labelled "force" is what I'm after. Is that the singularity, or is the pyramid rotatable and the singularity is in the center of the pyramid?

[Fredrick]

The only singularity I can place in top is an abstract, Nobody, in this case the name tag 'force' or in other cases 'direction' or 'color.' So no singularity exists in this pyramid. If I want to find something singular, it would either be the entire pyramid (with all its facets) or it would be the center of the pyramid (from top to bottom) where the various aspects are in such a balance that they could be considered to be nothing, or muted, or 'in balance.'

I find the term 'rotation' confusing, since it is already the pyramid of direction, and that would then be a second term used in one pyramid. But if you insist and look at North pole and South pole again, of course they exist due to rotation: and rotation is found in one direction only, so we could say that the earth rotates to the East.

Singularity does not exist (say I). Our universe exists.

[N0B0DY]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well, Fredrick, that when all the aspects are absolutely or centrally-unified, they must be considered abstract. So comparatively, the universe or omniverse follows suit and must be considered abstract when unified.

The rotation was basically just a way to make ends meet, so to speak. If we picture a ball rolling on the ground with an observer on each side, one observer will see the ball rolling from left to right and the the other observer will see it rolling from right to left. If those two perspectives were to merge, the ball couldn't possibly roll. So we could conclude then that from an absolute perspective, because the universe includes all perspectives, there is no rolling ball. So, comparative to this, the existence of particles due to spin are non-existent to the absolute universe; and, similarly, space being dependent upon extensions in any direction, and the absolute perspective simultaneously including all directions, can't very well exist except through the abstract means of relativity.

Perhaps this is why the Higg's Boson will never be observed - it is the theoretically-based spinless absolute "particle."

Ultimately, if we separate our "selves" from the universe; and the universe is literally none, the goal of egolessness becomes the gateway to realizing perfection.

[Fredrick]

Agreed, but let me use my own words here that position is cue, and that there is no single overall position (except when believing that god takes in such position).

[N0B0DY]

Now we're getting somewhere, Fredrick, or more accurately nowhere. I would say that both the religious and scientific communities, though, proclaim a singular absolute source for universal phenomena. It is promising that we both use the terminology, "there is no single overall position," because then we can focus on the two abstract perspectives of the abstract singular state: one being expansive; and the other contractive. So we can realize that the abstract state represents both the wave/particle persepctive, and the motionless medium.

I had mentioned before that dark matter can be equated to antimatter, and it can be linked to gravity in the same way that we can link electromagnetism to matter through gravitational time dilation which slows down time or redshifts effectual energy transfers. Whereby, instead of there being a disproportionate amount of matter/antimatter and postulating "antimatter universes" elsewhere, both "exist" at the same point, but are annihilated instantaneously. This important factor, which Lloyd neglects, positions every source point of annihilation at zero and every source point of creation at zero - necessarily using an infinite model - with mass/antimass being proportionate to energy/gravity, dependent upon Planck time dilation.

So when we consider that positive massive energy exactly equals negative massive energy, it is relatively easy to see that mass/energy conservation is one-sided, and that electromagnetism and gravity are inversely equal. Which is why a magnet will always will always be drawn to the ground, macroscopically, and always repelled at strong-force range to produce the weak force. Essentially all forces being different electromagnetic effects at different ranges.

It reminds me of my old arguments on Pangaea, where miscalculations that place it approx. 200 million years ago based on present-day drift of approx. 3 cm over the atlantic ocean, neglect subduction and convection current changes of an extreme magnitude which renders Pangaea to 12,000 years ago; or miscalculations of the speed of light based on speeds in a vaccum that don't account for all that interference.

God only knows why folks feel it's ok.