You were very clear in your delivery, but I have to stand behind my conclusion that the basis of the reality you refer to is abstract as well because I have concluded that all points, phenomena, noumena, are composite. They can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the impression of real relative frames.
In short, the universe doesn't share standards of time, required for "anything" to persist to exist. Although, I can concede that something such as your "self" is real to you and others through energy transfers over time - through observations.
Descartes mentioned that thinking was proof enough for ultimate existence. Even the modern adaptation "I dance therefore I exist" is all I need to find myself embracing the truth on this side of our conversation. However, your words are not in conflict with mine. Your words that specific aspects "can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the impression of real relative frames" is exactly — void two words — what I would say: specific aspects can only be created by the abstract perspectives of the absolute frame that gives the real relative frames. If I understand our conflict correctly then stating that 'our universe exists' is the single aspect in which we differ. I agree that when we start out with Earth —> solar system/galaxy —> universe, that the word universe is then an abstract phenomenon (but earth is not). Vice versa, if we start out with Universe —> materialization processes —> matter, then universe is the real thing, while matter is the generic abstract. I distinguish between using the same aspect in an abstract and in a real way. I know, it can be complicated when language is involved.
In reality, I consider this both a religious and a verbal debate. In religion any position is possible as long as the facts are not undermining the position, and we have lots of freedom to take in whichever position we like. In other words: I do not mind you saying that the universe is non-existent. Yet, from my 'religious' perspective, I feel it is not helping us getting the best grip on the overall picture, either. Still, your words and my words do not disagree in regards to figuring out the full ultimate picture (which includes giving importance to the phenomenon of nothing). I'd like to say more on this being a verbal conflict.
My explanation of us all being engaged in the new Tower of Babel in this thread is based on the old version: ancient tribes who had different ideas about how to build a construct to the sun, and their quarrels making it impossible to set up a single tower. In the end new languages were spoken, each different from the other.
The way I explain this verbal delivery (which was also written about in the bible) is that this was not an actual tower, a construction, but rather a construct — of how the sun fits in within the entire picture. When tribes were getting together, they discussed their ideas about the sun, its passages through the sky, day/night, summer/winter movements, etc. Different ideas competed with one and another, and the tribes were unable to place all information in one single overall concept. In other words: mentally, they could not build a tower to the sun. As we know from Egyptian hieroglyphs, ancient people did (also) communicate in pictorial words with one another, supporting my idea that the tower should be seen as a construct, not an actual construction.
For us it is easy to see that they had a hard time communicating with each other because they had only subjective facts (experienced facts), not objective facts (verifiable facts). Tribes North of the equator would have obtained opposite subjective information from tribes South of the equator, while at the equator neither set of facts could fully be verified.
Add to the mix the option to make the ground underneath our feat absolute dead-center (geocentric) and the option to make the sun the center of it all (heliocentric). Without objective evidence, and all observations receiving similar importance, no overall theory is ever possible. Some of the information has to be incorrect.
We know that between the many suggestions one version was true: the earth is round and spins around its axis once a day, and treks around the sun once a year. We know that prior to the Middle Ages, there have been ancient peoples who already supported a heliocentric explanation (yet, while it was an idea they supported, they could not convince others fully to embrace this as true). We find ourselves in a similar bind. It may therefore be worthwhile to investigate what positions these ancient tribes would have taken in, because we may recognize our own behavior and thinking.
Those who supported the idea of a spinning earth and a sun-centered universe could still not convince others that their position was indeed correct from a local perspective. One of the reasons they could not convince others was the fact that it is pretty difficult to take tribes North towards the tropic of Cancer and South to the tropic of Capricorn in a short span of time, and showing others what trajectories the sun was really following. Nor was it possible to convince others that the sun was the center, and not the earth. Another problem is the complex meaning of words. The story tells us that after being unable to build the tower the various languages appeared. I believe, however, that the hidden complexity of words first became obvious in this mental/verbal conflict. The many different meanings contained within language existed already.
Even the tribes who had it all wrong had a lot of subjective information gathered that could not be denied. Just hearing a different possible explanation is not enough to open up minds. My guess is that the ones with the truly open minds heard what they needed to hear and moved away (from the discussion), while those who had made up their minds about their own version being correct remained till the bitter end. I think the discussion is most interesting in the beginning in as far as actual sharing of information is concerned, while communicating about difficulties contained within the use of language is probably the most interesting remainder afterwards.
From our modern perspective, we can see that the discussion about the position of the sun would have been better served by a discussion about the position of the earth. I believe the discussion by all of us about everything should therefore correctly focus on the phenomenon of nothing, but we should also focus on the format of singularity versus the plural format more (and what that entails for the ultimate picture).
Let me end this long delivery here (sorry about it being so long) with stating that I like words, and though there is no absolute real science to linguistics (only lesser or more professional guesses), I want to use that word 'sun' here, and show how important singularity has been (or may have been) to ancient people alive when words came about.
In Italian the word for sun is sole, quite close to the word solo. In an interesting combination of English, Spanish and Dutch, the word sin can be mentioned as showing a singular position. In English, a sin does not point to something specific, but it is something negative; in Spanish it is more specific, meaning without. In Dutch the word for sin is zonde, the word for without is zonder. These are extremely similar words, while the word for sun is zon (also found within the words zonde and zonder). My overall translation is that the original speakers (and English, Spanish, and Dutch all belong to the Indo-European language group with a single common origin) felt that being selfish is a sin. One is sinful, when going without the other. It is sin-gular in that an overall collective (read: plural) position is abandoned. This singular position can only be obtained when starting out from a collective perspective. The ancient people had an overall picture of everything as being plural in nature.
__________________ 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 think that "thinking" is the operative word regarding existence. Since there is no way to prove that anything exists, declarations of existence can be rendered according to thought. We can then proclaim, "We think we are dancing, therefore we think that we exist."
If we equate mind and body, as in some sects in the east, that essentially equates the tangible and intangible based on differentiating sensory perceptions according to abstract perspectives, then reality can be thought of as a dream made real. The mind is an extremely powerful tool, as evidenced by phantom-limb sensations and hallucinations. The bottom line, though, is that it doesn't matter if things are really real or not, if experiential reality remains the same - an abstract is distinguished as being real, pending the thought process.
Regarding the sun, there are certain prohibitions as to how much knowledge is given and should be sought after. The first civilizations had knowledge of the stars, and used astronomical maps to attempt to foretell future events that correlate with the heavens. It has a tendency to go as far as seeing certain individuals in the stars, like figures in the clouds, getting folks all hot and bothered over nothing, and some manifesting their destinies at the expense of innocent others.
You're right, only one version is correct, but no one has enough knowledge to create the correct construct. That knowledge is reserved for the universe, and trying to discover and uncover things ahead of time in the incorrect fashion has historically proven to repeatedly create hell on earth instead of heaven on earth. Needless to say, I don't aim to build a tower, but to persuade others to consider the consequences of their actions by following the age-old "wei wu wei" - action without acting; doing nothing and yet all is done.
To further this, in a religious context, the guilt held deep inside the subconscious mind of accountable actions prevents the freedom of the soul. Where the subconscious mind judges all conscious actions, and executes.... If you can forgive others, you can forgive yourself, but most are hardpressed to do so and are continually subjected to the prevailing circumstances of the mind.
The alternative being the absolute surrendering of the ego, whereby all actions are discounted because you're not the "one" acting according to your own will, but allowing the will of the universe to manifest through you.
The universe manifests through us, for we ARE it come to life. The universe has perhaps achieved consciousness through us, unless, of course, the universe is made of consciousness.
Consciousness is our only portal to reality and could be the only thing that exists, although we don’t know yet, but if hallucinations and night dreams can so easily generate what appears as reality, we have to take this as a VERY BIG CLUE that waking reality could be doing the same. The problem is that then minds and brains might not be real either. Then what?
So far we accept that there are no colors, scents, and light, etc. as we know them out there, if there is an out there, but seem to come from waves or interference patterns “out there”. But again, we cannot trust anything that our consciousness observes to be real.
As for phantom limbs, that seems less amazing since the “I’m here” nerves still connect to the brain.
The subconscious, if it is real, doesn’t always feel guilt, for many fall for their own thoughts hook, line, and sinker as if they were gospel.
I am conscious, therefore consciousness exists?
However, consciousness doesn’t seem to be directly observable, especially if we are it, and doesn’t seem to be an object but only a ground—a subject that experiences objects. It’s hard to see the sea in which we see.
But it’s still fun to figure out the Theory of the Unreal That is Completely Useful as if it Were Real.
Thank you, Austin, for supporting both Nobody and me in your response. It feels a little bit like an infighting since both Nobody and I are very close in both of us regarding the nothing as vital to understanding everything.
I think the essential breakthrough has to come through exposing the truth about language. If I start out using Nobody's thought process then I can truly claim that not a single word has any actual meaning, for words are nothing but sounds, are nothing but meaningless. I then speak like Nobody. Yet through the collective of speakers of a language words do transmit truthful end real meanings from one person to another. As such, language is real in that the truth is transmitted — captured in a package of non-sensical sounds to anyone not familiar to the language. If you remember a previous post of mine, I state that the truth is contained like a ball, existing on an inside while the outside is a realm of half-truth (the real contained within the abstract).
If that is what this comes down to, then this is nothing but a linguistic debate, Nobody. I do not think I can value the word 'non-existence' as a real word when refering to the universe — and I know I place much in this conversation because there is not much we differ about — but it undermines all my words and any word ever spoken. I don't mind if you feel that way, but then there is no value in conversing. I feel you are taking me to the end of the actual meanings of my/your/our words.
I do not mind if we are the product of some mind thinking, because the product of that mind (or minds) is still real. If you consider the product not real then the mind cannot be real either for what is a mind that cannot produce real products: useless. Only when a mind can actually produce products (i.e our reality) does the mind receive the status of worthy of consideration. So, no real product, no real mind.
__________________ 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 think that everyone who has taken part in this thread, understandably, clings to what seems to be so real. To feel is to be real, and the feeling is so strong that to think all is unreal is simply unrealistic. Many think that abstract reality and reality should be different, instead of different abstract bases governed by the means of differentiating experiences and thoughts. The means is consciousness, and is perhaps where we differ most in that consciousness is not a thing, not a mind or brain. It is abstract, and if capable of producing reality through an abstract process (or as THoR suggests, based on an abstract principle), then reality can't be rendered as a physical reality.
I remember you mentioning the ball, Fredrick, and understand the frustration of trying to depict the truth, but contextually the whole truth equates to nothing and trying to ascertain the whole truth is synonymous to trying to picture or understand nothingness. It can't be done because it requires that the ego doesn't exist, and the ego is required to perceive and conceive. There is an infinitely-fine line between the infinite and the absolute, and the best one could do would be to have an awareness of an infinite number of half truths that could theoretically be pieced together to attain infinite knowledge. This is precisely what I proclaim the sublevels of consciousness do to calculate and set the laws of quantum and macroscopic nature, but is, again, a far cry from absolute knowledge acquired by the universe's capacity to not exist. Similar to the vedic depictions of the universe being beyond existence and non-existence - both and neither.
The transmission of information requires differentiating factors, and only an absolutely static and hence non-existent universe can differentiate the whole of differentiating factors - the whole truth. Only the absolute medium can differentiate the infinitesimal waves that carry information, and only the absolute medium is unbound with respect to space and time. The moment there is a concept of motion, is the moment speed becomes a factor in the transmission of events from point to point in time and space. So eventhough having a close relationship, linguistically, realizing the specific nature and lack thereof of the infinite/eternal and the absolute, reveals the differences. It would take an eternity for information to be transmitted across an infinite universe, even at infinite speed, but would take no time at all for the absloute universe to recreate any event at any point in time and space because there is no such thing as time or space to the absolute universe. To perhaps picture this, we could try to imagine a localized event occurring anywhere, as occurring everywhere, because to the absolute universe it is occurring nowhere - interactions are instantaneous.
Reverting to the ball, the absolute center of the "real" ball is as abstract as the exterior of the ball. The determining factor that renders the internal functioning and form of the ball as abstract, is that the central abstract point carries through neighboring abstract centers that of course meet with the abstract exterior - all points are central.
So I simply conclude that there is only a single abstract non-dimensional point, a black hole of you wish, and the functioning and form are illusory - summed up as G=mc^2.
Let me just throw some ideas and arguments in here, as there may be something to work with here, Nobody...
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
Absolute speed is the foundation for my theory, Lloyd, to explain the difference between light in an absolute vaccum and light in a non-absolute vacuum.[IMO, there is no absolute vacuum possible. Both universal stages, space without vacuum and space with vacuum, both must contain the fundamental substance, both states are truly made of, therefore; light speed is always governed by the matter densities of each state. True enough, light would at first travel faster in the stage one state, but still never at absolute velocity. Though this first matter state's density is extremely thin, it still exists, as the absolute fundamental substance of the entire universe.{this would be the fundamental matter, of the total or final, decayed state of finiteness, we're talking about.}] The former is the logical conclusion based on extending the laws of science, where absorption and emission of carrier particles is reduced to zero by reducing spacetime fabrications to zero.[You break the symmetry of the laws of physics, when you reduce the fabrications of either space, down to zero entity, except zero temperature. The univers must eternally contain its most fundamental substance, which is most likely a photonic substance.] We've been through it a few times, and you always wish to revert to mainstream.[Mainstream logic of logic, yes, of course. There is no valid logic of an abstract, just one's wild imagination. You can only reduce the fundamentals down to the absolute physical fundamentals, and no further. They may be small and thin densities, but they're still very much, eternally, there.]
The big bang that you advocate, as most others do, is based on a literal interpretation of religious text, and it is unnecessary to explain universal functioning.[The big-bang I'm using is not the big-bang you are referring to. It is the logical outcome of very empirically real celestial decay mechanics, from this very moment, using all the laws of physics and math, to prove, then its re-constitution as its only possible form___another massive singularity creating the vacuum and all the four forces of nature, from it thermal dynamics of, actually, a very thinned matter state gas of fundamental photonic substance, or whatever else you may propose as the absolute fundamental___real physical substance. But, it has to be a very real physical substance, to exist___period.] Does it really make sense to you that a universal state at thermal equilibrium contracts,[You're the only one saying it's at thermal equilibrium. I'd say it's at its greatest thermal dis-equilibrium, at fundamental state change formations, just as it is at the big-bang stage. IMO, we now live in the universe's greatest equilibrium state, which would be defined by the ability to support life.] especially when you are now disassociating quatum fluctuations from the process?[No, I'm not disassociating quantum fluctuations from the proces, just defining them very differently, than quantum mechanics does now. I'm saying first state space is linear quantum space motions only, which through first state evolution, change to linear/angular/spin quantum second state motions of matter/waves, to real solid matter.] Why wouldn't macroscopic laws apply to the microcosm, and why would macroscopic observations take precedence over their microscopic foundation?[Microcosmic and microcosmic laws both apply everywhere, that they exist, as the existing state of matter exists, but when the finite universe's spin and angular momentums decay, you certainly have a straight linear state space, and not the now recognized linear/angular/spin state. This is why at the decay, which would be the opposite end of the universal evolution model/fact/reality, the macroscopic observations must take precedence over the microscopic foundation, as the true foundation is the really the macroscopic matter and motions, as the prime state and mover___always.]
I liked your low-energy fusion explanations far more than your high-energy requirement, eventhough I disagreed with localizing the process. Just like the absolute speed[has no valid scientific meaning] above containing all relative speeds, absolute temperature[has no valid scientific meaning] contains all relative temperatures - the high-energy fusion is within low-energy fusion[true enough], like the zpe at both ends of the spectrum[also true enough] - and the bulk of gravitational energy is used to form neutrons.[No gravitational energy can be proved to exist in the stage one state of universal formation. In fact, the decay model easily mathematically, and logically shows this___If such gravitational energy decays, as we travel far into the future, beyond the spin to keep spinning light cone space, a new universe formation stage state would have no possibility of such quantum required motions___they would be beyond the celestial mechanics of finite spin and angular momentum, existing only as linear/slowly rotating decayed motions___The primal state of all motion.]
We can think of the universe as an infinitely large neutron, or consisting of an infinite number of neutrons (consisting of an infinite number of electrons/positrons/gravitons/photons), and just like the observed effects of decay when atomic numbers increase, the universe continually decays to produce a "time" of energy transfer at c in the non-absolute vacuum.[I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I see only the finite vacuum, created by the big-bang and spin, and a primary state space, beyond the finite decay, of no vacuum,{vacuum not existing, because it also decays, as a valid finite state space, into the true state space/void} containing the fundamental space/matter/motion.]
The point where electromagnetism overcomes the strong force is the point where electromagnetism unifies with the much weaker gravity at the macroscopic scale, to stabilize the bound state of hydrogen through the exchange of virtual particles that are nothing more than the residual effects of decay.[Agreed, but where does this take place, in the universe, if not in a singularity/black-hole?] You can call the lowest state absolute ground, just like we can call near zero absolute zero, but it's infinitely different. The absolute ground pertains to the absolute speed[And here I'd have to say, this is absolutely scientifically undefined.] and temperature of the universe - instantaneous interactions[Again, this is absolutely scientifically undefined.] - and the lowest bound state refers to the perturbations when the ground is infinitely divided.[And yet here, I would agree with you.] Sort of like a big earthquake, though abstract because the absolute can never change.[And here again, dis-agreement, because the absolute absolutely must be able to change, or nothing changes or moves___The frozen state problem?]
So, se what you can do with our differences here, as we do seem to be getting closer... There's only so many words, to align state spaces, with...
Lloyd
p.s.
Quote:
So I simply conclude that there is only a single abstract[nonsense] non-dimensional point, a black hole of you wish, and the functioning and form are illusory - summed up as G=mc^2. [Where's the physical matter point of mc^2? There is one!!!]
Hey Nobody, don't give up so easily, the real and absolute universe is before your eyes, all four of them___When they meet full universal circle, you understand...
__________________ "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.
Who can under-stand the universe
(Not even needing a place to stand)
That is nowhere and everywhere,
A wizard creating something of nothing,
Whose imagination reaches the edge
Of forever, beyond, and before.
(Austin)
The Possibility of Being
This is the creature there has never been.
They never knew it, and yet, none the less,
They loved the way it moved, its suppleness,
Its neck, its very gaze, mild and serene.
Not there, because they loved it,
It behaved as though it were.
They always left some space.
And in that clear unpeopled space they saved
It lightly reared its head,
With scarce a trace of not being there.
They fed it, not with corn,
But only with the possibility of being.
And that was able to confer such strength,
Its brow put forth a horn. One horn.
Whitely it stole up to a maid —
To be within the silver mirror and in her.
(from Sonnets To Orpheus Second Part
R. M. Rilke 1923)
Truth is Pure Love i.e. Pure Awareness of one's True Self. Thought per se in the first Nanosecond is a form imprisoning Pure love in its structure (in-formation) and as Pure Love i.e. Pure Awareness can not be imprisoned in any structure because it is complete within Itself - any and all experience arising from the structure is an illusion.
True Love or Pure Awareness is not there. In order for our consciousness to be aware of the structure of thought it must lose conscious awareness of Itself as Pure Love or Pure Awareness. And, as we are Pure Love or Pure Awareness then everything that we are experiencing from the physical - material body and the physical-material universe is an unreal illusion.
As long as we think that the illusion is real then we are lost in illusion because "As You Think - So You Become."Thinking per se is then understood to be the "cause" as it per se causes us to lose awareness of our True Self." The separate entity within every human being called spirit which is "Unchangeable Permanence."
This spirit is Pure Love or Pure Awareness that we in the process of thinking have lost awareness of. The Truth Of what we call God i.e the Pure Awareness or Pure love is beyond any and all human thought.
Reverting to the ball, the absolute center of the "real" ball is as abstract as the exterior of the ball. The determining factor that renders the internal functioning and form of the ball as abstract, is that the central abstract point carries through neighboring abstract centers that of course meet with the abstract exterior - all points are central. So I simply conclude that there is only a single abstract non-dimensional point, a black hole of you wish, and the functioning and form are illusory - summed up as G=mc^2.
Well, I am going to try to explain the intrinsic problem, created when using words in overall spots only, with an example from art. But let me first say that I have no problems with the contents of what you are saying (and what others are saying).
I can claim all paintings to be abstracts and be right about that. Yet if I want to discuss abstract paintings versus realistic paintings then the word 'abstract' needs to be clarified. To discuss the abstractness of all paintings only and throw out the abstractness of some specific paintings vs realistic painting, makes for a very short conversation. Equally, the other position can be mentioned, too, that paintings are always real. Despite their artful character, as soon as someone uses a pen, paint, or brush, a painting starts to exist.
I am caught in the middle, Nobody, for saying that both the person stating that all paintings are abstracts and the person stating that all paintings are real are both correct. In the mean time, what I really want is discuss the entire picture, which also includes the difference between abstract versus realistic paintings. Someone who sits on one position, and one position only, makes for short conversations.
To state that the universe exists only in a non-existent state makes it very difficult to discuss the existing and the non-existing parts of our universe. Others are present who state that the universe always exist — and they are as right as you are. The full picture, however, must include both positions, because that is the true full picture — allowing for people to take in different positions from which everything seems to fall in place.
I think I am finally understanding more and more what your position is and how you view the universe. If I were to compare your delivery to religion, you would be part of the agnostics, who state that we cannot know the entire picture. In a scientific sense, am I right? It would explain the difficulties I am having with your words — finding myself stating much the same things, but with the knowledge that one can know the final answer. Because, at the original Tower of Babel conflict, people who had the correct perspective were most likely present; they just couldn't get their points come across for others to see/accept.
__________________ 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.
My interpretation of the theory of everything, the unification of forces, is the theory of nothing because absolute solidity and absolute vacuity - the one and zero - are the same non-existent static state.
I feel my position has been finagled to imply that something is created from nothing, or as you have noted, Fredrick, that my position suggests the universe exists in a non-existent state. Just to be clear on this point, things aren't created and the absolute universe doesn't exist. It would be a miracle if it did.
It can be semi-accurately likened to a blank white canvas (without holes) that already contains all pictures, because white contains all colors and all points are covered. It is synonymous to the state of instantaneous actions as a whole, the one; and the state of no action at all, the zero. There can be no such thing as an absolute universe, the canvas, because separation/differentiation is required for existence to be allotted a rate of energy exchange - motion and time - and the absolute universe can't very well have motion if it can't possibly ever move. Therefore the laws that govern evolution, in the form of linear expansion, angular interactions, momenta, etc., must be abstract. No literal change can occur, in a literal part of the universe that literally compares to an infinite space that must also be part of the universe, etc..
The aristotelian implication of activity being the fundamental substance, must then be a result of the reduction of the aforementioned absolute speed - instantaneity. We have to remember that the evolutionary procession is only a reality to those who observe the effects of those set laws, without those observers there is no time and hence no evolution.
Can we say that anything can happen, by pulling things out of a magic hat? No, because the persistence of existence requires a set of circumstances that allows observations to exist the way they do. Humans are one of them pictures in the canvas, and the rate at which humans detect, interpret and categorize differentiable stimuli at maximum capacity, must be equated with the rate of the energy transfers of evolution in its entirety. So, yes, I'm saying that your mind governs evolution because you can't declare evolution is...whatever, unless you observe, intepret and categorize according to the same rate that you process information. There is no magic here, just logic.
You're right, Lloyd, the absolute speed cannot be validated empirically, which is why I said you revert to mainstream. It is a logical deduction based on extending empirical inverse laws to the absolute level. As strange as it may seem, increasing or decreasing "physical" factors to the absolute level negates both. As opposed to infinitely increasing or decreasing the same, whereby the increase or decrease will never render a null result. As I mentioned before, the incremental motion that macroscopic motion consists of, requires a static medium. This static medium doesn't/can't exist, and is the crux of all "matter" - particles, waves, motion, time, ad nauseam. So what would that equate to, Lloyd?
I think if you're willing to use your head instead of your eyeballs we can figure this all out. It really doesn't have to be all that complex. All matter (your eyeballs and brain), space included, is less than c; and c equals non-existence. Time, existence, stands still at the meeting point of photons and gravitons. The bulk of the pull of gravity on photons is contained within "mass," to the point that we can conclude dim-wittedness creates what is observed as matter and the partial effects of residual gravity - both attraction and repulsion - as electromagnetism in reverse.
Linear Mode
