[Lloyd Gillespie]

Well, we're coming closer together in our ideas, in this post Nobody. I'll see what I can add below, but by recently going over my notes of the last year, I realized "The Absolute ONE Absolute," is a non-existent, and impossible point to even define. I'd come across this before, but couldn't resolve my own thinking's theorizing, and forgot about it until recently re-discovering it. This is why I've always either used it as an adjective or verb, describing the likes of the "Infinite absolute universe." When "The Absolute ONE Absolute" is scrutinized as its "Oneness", it immediately becomes an impossible definement, i.e., our classical linguistic stumbling block, and all of society's, over the centuries. Nobody, Absolute ONE, is an absolute impossibility___There is no "Absolute ONE", ever possible. It's a scientific logical and physical impossibility, thus most likely the reason for so many accepting abstract and relative ideas, in its place.

The only trouble with this line of logical reasoning is, it eliminates the possibility of all "god" thinking, having any possibility of any kind of reasonable meaning, or sense abilities, but when one truly thinks thoroughly enough about the absolutely necessary fundamental entities, to form a universe, one will quickly realize they can never exist alone as a "ONE", because any "ONE" entity is absolutely un-definable, and totally unworkable as any forming/formation of any type of mechanical/physical universe. Just look at it this way, what is energy without matter? Matter without motion? Motion without its fundamental force? Force without its scientific definition? FS without motion and force? Not "ONE" of these entities can be described alone, and have any real meaning___It takes, at the least, "TWO", and really "THREE", to develop any credible meaning, or fundamental function. We just simply haven't looked deeply enough into the true linguistic dynamics of "ONE", and its true possible potential, as it really has None___It never exists, it's a chimera. It only exists as the parts of one universe, even at its most fundamental of levels___First actions and substances. So, in order to make any initial universal linguistic sense, we must use the discernible differentiating function of a minimal TWO and THREE entity reference, and inference points, or subjects. It's linguistically, logically and mathematically absolutely required___period.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"I don't know if you, yet, get my meaning, but all present concepts are, as yet, incomplete. Linguistics of philosophy, physics and economics must be expanded, to its new completeness ideal states, for any of us, to truly understand each other..."

That's what I'm trying to do, Lloyd. To make complete what is incomplete, or rather to push people to complete things for themselves, and I'm looking for people to offer pieces to further evolve the picture. Consciousness comes close, but the proper correlations have to be made or else it won't do well to support the mechanical side of things.[I completely agree.]

So when I say we extend evidence, I don't mean we make things up as we go along. It relates to extending observational laws fractally, but in such a way as to allow for the mechanics to function logically. I.e., we can't have literal dimensions expanding to create volumetric spacetime into non-volumetric spacetime - you can't step forward into a place that isn't there.[Absolutely agreed.] So, the fundamental model must be rendered abstract, and its correlating mechanics must function abstractly.[If you followed what I wrote above, you know already, I do not agree with the abstract, as I don't accept its existence having any bearing on physical evolution or reality, nor do I accept the physical existence of the physical absolute "ONE"___As it's truly all parts. It's just the chimera of the physical universe, and nothing more, in all physical reality, yet is at the same time, truly part of the theoretical abstract thinking processes of all our minds.]

I tried to come up with the best way to express why the FS has to be motionless, since the FS of space is space itself and there can be no such thing as less-concentrated spaces between concentrated forms of space - it's all the same.[This is true, but at the same time, space just by being the FS, must be still and move___both, for any possible universe to evolve. There is no physical law preventing the FS from being partially still, and moving within itself, at the same time___just as all weather systems do, or all cultures do. This is just simple systems science, everywhere.] Our contention is that matter is formed by waves in space, but there is no room for literal waves to be generated because the space is absolute.[Yes, but you seem to forget that waves are also made of the FS, as there is nothing but the physical FS, in the entire universe, moving of and within itself. It just forms waves from its infinitesimalizing mechanics of FS into what we see as waves, when in reality, is nothing but a smaller sized FS and its attendant motions.] So I still have a problem with the concept of separating phenomena in this context, because matter would have to consist of something altogether outside of the universal substrate that we're proposing.[No, not at all, if you follow what I've just written. It is you who suggested the infinitesimalizing of matter, or fractionalizing as the same, and it is I, who am agreeing with you. When you can finally see FS as the fully capable fluid changeling, that it truly is, you will see the thermal mechanics of FS works just fine, all the way from spheroidal infinity, to finiteness, and back, creating the full cycling universe, and not the cyclic universe, prone to false origins and actions.]

That doesn't mean we can suggest anything we want, only that the medium and wave-particle probabilities can't ever change.[And here is where you fail to see, they do and must change, to make any mechanical scientific sense of the real universe. The real and complete universe is a two stage wave medium of infinite thermal in-waves, creating the electrodynamic out-waves. These are two discrete thermodynamic systems of cold and hot motions and velocities, as electrodynamics keeps you stuck at c, and only thermal velocities allow the slower velocities, we actually recognize in the real universe. It's the differences of these two system, makes the universe function mechanically properly, and completely. Without a two system motion system, scientific thinking will always be condemned to a logical hell, it cannot escape. This two system motion system is nothing I'm dreaming up___It's absolutely obvious, if one just looks at the empirical facts___truly, for a change.] Yet, photons/gravitons can serve as spacetime according to the space between wavelengths and amplitudes because they are createdbytime dilation[If you actually mean distance here, I agree, i.e., time dilation is distance matter moves.] (created from antimatter which reduces amplitude and frequency to zero - a type of out-of-phase relationship.[The only antimatter definition I can agree with is, thermal linear motion dark matter FS, before first finite electrodynamic singularity, producing first quantumized angular/spin matter/motions.] So, asymmetry must then be created through the confinement of gravitons, matter and antimatter working against each other to slow down events incrementally to the detectible spectrum which are measured at peak or valley events, but never both which together I propose is the photon/graviton itself.[I agree with the photon/graviton part of your thinking, but the slowing is from initial thermal conditions, and not the incremental slowing of c. C slows according to matter density, but FS matter density of thermals also speeds and slows the FS, existing before any first star of electromagnetic light. The truest answers lie more in the dark side of our theoretical universe, than on the light side. And, these theoretical ideas are all knowable by a true correspondence logic, of finiteness to infinity.] Sort of like the photon-hole model of matter through gravitational time reversal, and this process results in the spherical, helical and a-helical structures of all particles because they are all formed from electromagnetism/gravity, with hydrogen formation and bonding occurring between annihilation events.[Separate out electrodynamics from the more true thermodyamics of the universe, and you'll have a better picture of reality.]

Hope this helps,
Lloyd

p.s.
I'm only part way through my notes, but they already contain all the proofs of infinity, FS, thermals, and fundamental motions. As far as I can remember, the rest of the notes only further back up my correspondence reasonings with more evidential logic, empiricism and math. I'll let you know all the results, when I complete editing my notes...

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

Not that I wouldn't be honored to be on your team, but I'm of an opposite view. It goes against my religion, so to speak.

I don't think there are such things as tangible things, and that assumes an opposite stance of pretty much everybody. I think space, particles, energy, etc., are created by the subconscious mind as a particular set of parameters and that the conscious mind is the scientist/mathematician. The closest I could come to explain it summarily is that the absolute state has no choice but to divide itself (0/0), and that division breeds its binary opposite (1) which in turn breeds an infinite number of abstract increments between 1 and 0. Abstract because there is no difference, contextually, to the absolute 1 and absolute 0.

The subconscious mind governs the variable arrangements of subatomic particles, which in turn are observed, calculated, interpreted, and categorized by the conscious mind at detectible levels. The subconscious governs the appropriate amount of energy/matter required for a body and mind to persist to exist according to their specific parameters. And this can function abstractly while eliminating chicken and egg scenarios, along with all false paradoxes, which is more than literal models or concepts that crystallize nature can say.

That is why I like your model, and entertain your ideas with mine, because there is an abstract aspect to it. Nevertheless it represents a particular functioning and format that has to fit into my own understanding of things so I questioned the dna and colors to get an idea of how they arise, if not from a division of the accumulated or unified whole. The four colors or four bases have to consist of something which consists of something else which consists of something else, in order for them to be relative. In the context of this thread, relative is the opposite of absolute - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/relative - and therefore the colors and bases can't be considered primary or intrinsic.

We can use a deck-of-cards pyramid: with all cards mixed at the top, adding a deck and removing one card at a time as we go down the center of the pyramid until we have no cards left; and from the bottom center, starting with one card according to one suit, and adding one card towards each corner until we have a complete suit at each corner. Now I might be stupid, but I don't see anything remotely intrinsic anywhere in the pyramid except for perhaps the bottom center. Yet, even that is dependent upon the cards, contextually, because cards are required for there to be a lack of them.

So, when I asked for the reason why primary colors are primary, I don't want to know why they would be independent of the color name tag or independent of all colors, but if one particular shade is primary or not. What do the colors consist of?

For the television example, I'm interested in what the hardware consists of because I think the energy that powers the projections is the same that creates the raw materials. That the whole set is a perpetual machine based on binary fluctuations of absolute space - the one and zero perspectives.

[N0B0DY]

Lloyd,

I have to say that I just can't believe it. I understand exactly what you are saying about the one absolute, primarily because that is what I've been saying all along. The crux of our arguments has been whether or not the absolute one exists. Perhaps if we argue long enough we'll switch roles!

You are remarkably close in theory to Fredrick I would say, in the sense that he is also willing to consider an abstract whole with fundamentally real parts existing in order for the universe to function. So I guess in that respect I have to stand alone because I have concluded that both the whole and the relative parts are abstract, with relative spacetime governed soley by the abstract perspectives of non-existence. One being expansive through division; and the other being contractive through multiplication.

Your point about the weather systems I addressed in another response a while back. I do read what you write. If we are to remain consistent, without contradicting ourselves, when we compare things to other things they have to obey the same laws in order for the mechanics to carry throughout all scales. Yet often empirical science is ignored because of theoretical science, and vice-versa, and philosophical science is ignored because the former two support each other seemingly so well. For instance, if gravity were to be the result of space warps, the earth would be rotating clockwise from a northern perspective, but it rotates counter-clockwise from a northern perspective. Which is a good example, imo, of classical physics taking precedence over quantum mechanics.

In a similar fashion, your partial movement and stillness of the FS neglects the fact that a differentiable medium is required for waves to literally be generated - air is the medium of water waves, not water is the medium of water waves, or rather the FS - space - is the true medium of all waves. What follows here is the most important point of what we're driving at, Lloyd. That the FS, since it is undifferentiable, i.e., absolute in and of itself, cannot ever be considered to function as both wave and medium. And that is why I propose only the photon/graviton can function mechanically-correct as both, because they can be likened to the center of a breaking wave or the sum of simultaneous peak and trough measurements. The peak-to-peak and trough-to-trough measurements represent the non-dimensional electron-positron pairs, which are analogous to snapshots of the effects of a reduction in speed. All impressions are therefore depednent upon the reducution of amplitudes which slow down the waves, so to speak, rendering itself logical that the photons/gravitons don't really exist, and therefore neither can the waves. There can be no partiality to the absolute, no lesser- or more-refined FS, and as a result there can be no physical reality. There can be no fluid changeling FS. It is a subconscious lightshow, deemed real by the conscious mind.

Ultimately, when you argue a cyclic-universe scenario it reminds me of the buddhist concept of reincarnation and concepts of universal breath. Again, I do read everything you write, Lloyd, but I follow the yogic breathless state that not only has a beneficial effect on what ails you, but is the extremely narrow gateway to perfection that prohibits the "Eternal Return." The big-bang models and little-bang models are attempts to force-fit religion into science. Neither, imo, have anything to do with absolute reality.

I will look into the thermodynamics more closely, but as I said there is nothing wrong at all with the mechanics of in waves producing out waves. What I said was that the mechanics can only apply if the universal model is finite, where the contractive mechanism has a definite point of reference. Without which, the waves would be so confused as to which way to move, they wouldn't move at all.

[N0B0DY]

I just thought I'd mention that the breathless state I advocate, Lloyd, is the complete non-existence of breath at the highest level of attainment. There is no urge to breathe at all, and there is no pulse.

I relate it to our topic by exemplifying that what is normally thought to be required for a particular existence to function can be transcended, and that is my interpretation of the absolute universe.

The breadth and breath of the space, and the pulsating of matter is the lowest form of existence, eternally functioning according to the dictates of an imbalanced and imperfect mind. Whereas the absolute state is the gateway to gain control of what is normally thought to be out one's reach. Sort of like merging consciousness and subconsciousness through unconsciousness.

The spontaneous cessation of breath has healed many illnesses and, to me, is tied in with the universal model - sort of like accidently tapping into what makes the universe "tick."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At that instant, he attained a profound realization, and he penetrated deeply into the ultimate nature of life.

He said to Cariapa when they were leaving the mountain, "I was watching the clouds, and suddenly I felt myself thinking nothing . . . however, I did not hear any Voice."

"Well done, you’ve heard the Voice at last."

"What do you mean?"

"The Voice of Heaven is a voiceless voice--absolute stillness."

"I see . . . well, I have another question. What will happen, if you hear the Voice?"

Cariapa simply answered, "Your life will now be filled with an infinite and natural life energy."

"Natural life energy?"

"Some day soon the signs of its presence will be clearly evident to you."

Tears welled up in Saburo’s eyes and fell down his cheeks. He thought, "I studied medicine at university, but I could not see this truth. Now the universe, trying to save a fool such as me, whispers such precious words to me through this old man."

And he cried in joy. It was 1912, and he was 36 years old. In this way, Saburo experienced satori, or spiritual realization. His illness was gone.

http://www.senninfoundation.com/tempu.html

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

The following might explain in a clearer fashion than I explain it, what I mean by the disproportionate matter/antimatter and electromagnetism/gravity created through time dilation at the quantum level. As well as the abstract nature of neurological effects.

Of course, we should never swallow everything whole, but they are intelligent individuals who think outside of the box, as we do.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Studies by Professor Benjamin Libet at University of California San Francisco in the late 1970's on awake neurosurgery patients suggested that the brain refers information "backwards in time". Simple activities like the sensation of walking (seeing and feeling your feet hit the pavement) may also involve backwards time referral. Vision of your feet hitting pavement should occur well before the sensory feel of your feet touching the pavement because of conduction times and synaptic delays through the long nerves and spinal cord from your feet, yet we perceive seeing and feeling as simultaneous. So, either a) the "fast" visual information is delayed, b) the sight and feel are experienced separately, but remembered as simultaneous, or c) the slow information is referred "backwards in time" (from the near future) to match the fast information.

From an evolutionary standpoint, a) "living in the past" would seem disadvantageous, as nonconscious "living in the disjointed present" animals would have a significant advantage. b) implies "Orwellian revisionism" (as Dennett puts it) and suggests that we aren't really conscious in any rational way in the present, that our experience is "edited". But c) seems preposterous. How can information run backwards in time? Penrose first suggested that quantum effects in the brain could explain backwards referral, and that such effects may occur commonly, even routinely. It turns out that in quantum mechanics, quantum information can indeed run backwards, or be time indeterminate. The Aharonov formulation suggests that each quantum state reduction has a dual vector, both forward and backwards in time."

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/...TimeFlies.html

[Fredrick]

Great, Lloyd, to find notes of an older date and discovering that we all walk on various paths that show different sides of our quest, allowing us to sharpen our minds when we get to the next intersection. And while we then may have to go into separate directions, we can do so knowing we connected on a previous intersection. Good to see us walking together.

Nobody, I think you've got a good point there. I am reminded of the fleeting passage of time. We experience an enormous amount of time within ourselves - the present is enormously enhanced by the past - yet in science all there is is the instant of the intersection between past and future, nothing more. Our capacity to carry much much more, makes that tiny aspect of time a whole lot more interesting and worth while.

My present means vacationing in a country far far away, so I have to keep it short.

[N0B0DY]

Hi, Fredrick. I thought you might keep one eye open for us while resting.

Time and its relationship with space seems to be a popular topic nowadays, and I was at the popular spaceandmotion.com site which aims to simplify the complex by reducing all events to one spatial source and its properties.

I noticed this while I was there: "One Thing, Space (Infinite and Eternal) Exists as a Wave-Medium and contains Wave-Motions which Propagate at the Velocity of Light c." and what struck me was that the medium is not differentiated from the waves like all other waves are differentiated from the medium. It appears that there is nothing more to differentiate the spatial waves, unless none is the medium for one.

I was also struck by this: "Special relativity is founded on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result that according to this latter theory the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present." (Albert Einstein, 1954) which is deduced by neglecting spatial interactions of the vacuum which slows the speed of light to "c" because the gravitational field is universal, and I thought it would be better read that light speed is inversely proportionate to the strength of the gravitational field. If light creates mass and mass slows light through gravity, and the medium of both is zero, then zero gravity would equal instantaneous events at true present.

I thought you and Austin might consider making a Space Pyramid, seeing that it is deemed soley fundamental, to perhaps further close the gaps in our thinking. Maybe specifying the said properties of space like in/out, wave/particle, planar/spherical at the corners, or something to that effect.

Take care for now!

[austintorn@aol.com]

Some Mental Exercises

1. What is the longest month?
2. Where do you find a no-legged dog?
3. What letter of the alphabet is usually left out in codes, but can still be used in the codes?
4. Who went into the lion’s den and came out alive?
5. How can you throw a ball a few feet and have it stop and come back to you?
6. Two sets of different footprints that were stepped in only once led to the edge of a very high sheer cliff and stopped. What could have happened to the two people since no bodies were found below?
7. How many seconds are there in a year?
8. I can wheel something in a wheelbarrow that you can’t wheel back—what is it?
9. What is the only day of the week that does not end in ‘y’?
10. Why are two little animals alone in a boat in the middle of the ocean?
11. Why has no one ever climbed the largest known extinct volcano?
12. What do you call a fly with no wings?
13. “I am” is the shortest sentence; what is the longest?
14. How many grooves are there on a standard 12 inch 33&1/3 record album? (approximately)
15. How many animals of each species did Moses take aboard the Ark with him?


Clues: 1. What is the longest day of the year? 6. They didn’t go over the cliff. 7. There are two answers. 9. It’s not yesterday. 10. It has to do with the ark. 11. It is not under the ocean. 13. There is another meaning to “sentence”.


(Also, I put a "Being" pyramid in one of the other forums. The challenge is to find it.)

[Fredrick]

I would like to make a pyramid out of all things important, but I don't know if that is possible, Nobody. I bumped into my own limitations with trying to make a pyramid of hydrodynamics, and I bet you I'll bump into the same limitation with Space. My conclusion is that Space is only a corner of a larger pyramid in opposition to Matter, while Time takes in both positions of the transformational pair as Past and Future in that pyramid. I am therefore taking your request to create a pyramid of Space as similar to desiring to make a pyramid of Future; maybe it is possible, but I don't think I can do it.

For me, Special Relativity must state that light is part of that set. Like white in the pyramid of color it is really not that special, it is just the max in our universe, and should still follow the same laws that govern everything else in our universe.

Space may in my view be seen as the medium that allows for wave movement. Yet I would not place that at the velocity of light, I'd put it at a relatively absolute level. Quantum Mechanics allows for instantaneous transmission (not across the universe but at a relatively short distant compared to the vast universe), so Space must simply allow for that. A medium of none would then come pretty close for this one, Nobody. It is most likely not equal to none, for QM would then not be limited in distance (I think), but certainly it'd be close.

I consider Time and Space to be two separate entities. What are your further thoughts?

[N0B0DY]

I was hoping you would give it a shot because like the other pyramids it gives me a chance to view it pictorially, which was helpful for me to understand more clearly the other pyramids.

What I like about the space and motion site is that space supercedes the entire universe nametag, which I would think would be your ultimate pyramidal endeavor, and it generally reduces universal forces and particles to spatial constructs. If you could entertain Milo Wolff's proposition, which greatly simplifies the sciences, I think your pyramid would further simplify it for people who understand better pictorially and would allow me to better locate and express how his one can equate to my none if gravity is considered to be a synergistic force.

I can sort of picture it like the gravitational depiction from your force pyramid, or the black from your color pyramid, where the one spatial pyramid might exist as dimensions extending from a non-dimensional center at the base center and a type of dimensional singularity at the top. Perhaps like length, width, height, and time at the corners. I don't know really, you're the pyramidal master so I'll take your word for it if you say it can't be done.

You're right about me looking for the whitest white that exceeds restrictions and fully unifies everything to (?). I figured if we're going to talk here about toe and unification we may as well really put our hearts into it and see what happens when things unify. I think time can fly faster than the speed of light when we're having the most fun, and strange things can happen sub-planckian.

Enjoy your vacation...