T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Fredrick]

Fredrick,

What facts are you refering to, that you want me to embrace?

A good toe embraces all, does not deny anything. I'd like to hear you state more about the self-based nature of our universe.

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

You seem to have hit my nail on the head. As you noted a few times, "nothing begets nothing," and a singularity can't do much of anything. The required inside and outside, which the singularity lacks, for expansion to occur can never occur and therefore the absolute universe must remain changeless and/or non-existent. It would be a rather large miracle if it did change - one that would be pushing the limits of a miracle of all miracles.

Contrary to what Fredrick has implied about my theory, it doesn't matter if we use particles, strings, membranes, even an infinite number of dimensions curled up infinitely tight. When the abstract is used, any and all shapes, extensions and dimensions can be included.

I can't recall if you have a site or blog explaining your theory. Could you post it here if you do?

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I don't think that the universe has a self-based nature, based on logical deduction, but I can understand what you mean. Similar to what MJA suggested, that the universe would exist if there were no observers, a self-based universe would exist in and of itself.

In order to prove that the universe exists without observation, you would have to refer to empirical information which is based on observations. I can't prove that the universe doesn't exist, but I don't have as much of a burden of proof because my claim is based on non-existence with or without observers.

Unlike observations based on literal motion, I propose abstract time dilation - absolute speed slowed down - gives the impression/observation of relative velocities of gravity and light responsible for the "creation" of mass and its decay over time.

[Fredrick]

Let me clarify, Nobody,

When I first started to contribute to this thread you and Lloyd were involved in quite a debate. I did not have much problems to see where the two of you were both right within your own positions, but both of you were definitively unclear about where the other person's position fitted in.

I broke into your conversation, and I thought Lloyd was the hardest nut to crack. I think I was incorrect on that assessment now; let me give you the lowdown on how I saw and how I see it:

My view was always right smack in the middle of your's and Lloyd's ideas: he proclaimed the absolute would always exist, you proclaimed the absolute could not exist.

Earlier this year, I was very glad to read that Lloyd discovered — while going over his own notes of last year — that "the Absolute ONE Absolute" is a non-existent and impossible point to define. It may be difficult for others who did not read this (on page 67 of our thread) to appreciate this fully. So here's my perspective:

I was caught in the middle of two guys arguing about the nature of 'absolute.' One said the absolute did not exist ever, the other said the absolute always exists. As said, the latter agreed (while acknowledging he'd thought of this himself quite some time before in another respect) that indeed the singular absolute does not exists. From my perspective, he made a concession in the right direction. Nobody's position, however, has not softened. He still claims the plural absolute cannot exist either.

Interestingly, it is very similar to being caught between scientists ignoring me, and philosophy-based-only thinkers, such as Nobody, relegating me to the side line. I am caught in the middle of a discussion, and both sides don't look at what I am bringing, desire not to look beyond the discussion they're vested in.

So here is my question to you (I have made this argument once before, Nobody). And unlike Lloyd you seem truly unwilling to address fundamental arguments, something that does not speak well in your regards. You state that the absolute does not exist, yet that is an absolute statement. In logic, that is a paradox. It is like someone wanting his cake, and then eating it twice (once front to back, and once back to front).

How do you explain your own absolute position that the absolute does not exist? Or in light of my previous question: how can you consider anything you say, do, or think, seriously, when you believe that you — at least to some extent — are not self-based?

[Profpat]

Nobody:

You can access my IDEA;
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/yourto...2803-idea.html ) You'll have to access it through the adobe/pdf file.

Please do I would love to hear your comments.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

I think you had brought that question up before, and I had thought I answered it by saying I don't have a position with respect to the absolute state of the universe. My references don't really have anything to do with absolute statements made, or absolutely stating that the universe doesn't exist.

For example, if I say that there can be no such thing as motion from the absolute perspective, that may be considered to be an absolute statement, but it doesn't mean that the absolute universe exists because I made that statement.

I can understand what you mean when you say that the statement is made from an absolute self-based position, but like your binary system it is actually a relative statement dependent upon existence and lack of existence. It is better related to what is observed and not observed, like space between differentiated particles, and not to the fullness of all "self-based" positions combined. Where the fullness and hence non-existence of discete particles can only be deduced form an inner realization. It can't be expressed in pictures or words. At that "point of no point" there is no conceptual self-based particles or positions.

The moment we talk about it, it is from the abstract positions we both have referred to, but from the absolute position there is no such things as us or our point of views or our positions or any delivery we may attempt to make regarding it. It is similar to that expression, "Life is to be lived, and not to be talked about."

In other words, if the toe were to be truly known, it would have to be explained through silence. Everything else is relatively partial and can never fully express the whole. So I equate everything with nothing to frustrate people to the point where they realize they should stop searching for something to trust in, and instead to trust in not searching for anything. Just like the old zen masters who questioned and questioned to the point where the question becomes the answer.

[N0B0DY]

Pat,

A few of the words aren't very clear, but I think I get the gist of it. It is very good, but I have just a few questions.

Would the point mass of the particles remain white where through the expansion of space and interaction with other point masses, the white would change to the colors, like through the prism you mentioned? I'm thinking along the lines of that being radiation caused by the gravitational force of the point masses.

The recent research that suggests the relativistic nature of nucleons greatly supports my thoughts on creation, so that would make sense to me. Although you have depicted through your diagram that the white is only at the center of the combined quarks, so I'm not sure if we are to think of each quark as having a white center. Also from the second picture it depicts the quarks as being 2-D membranes. I can understand how the structure would be created through charges, but why would the quarks expand as planes if the points expand in all directions?

From what I can gather, it would take the father heaven to penetrate mother earth, which is void, for creation to evolve. I'm thinking again that father represents radiation and mother represents gravity, so would the void have a gravitational force that reverses for there to be expansion, or are you suggesting that the radiation (white father) is always present and continually penetrating the void?

I think I would like the latter, because I can't view the void as having a force, and the continual radiation propagating in both directions would better explain the connection of gravity and electromagnetism.

My apologies if I don't fully understand your intro. I didn't notice if there was another chapter to it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I am on the run in Chicago, but the heat is on and I must soon depart. All this is causing me to fall out of the zone of writing stories, but I may be able to eke out one more.

Fredrick,

You may wish to learn how to run a locomotive. Also, brush up on your Russian, pack a pistol, and. . . <transmission cut off>

[N0B0DY]

The following might interest and be of use to a few folks, regarding expansion in general and the big bang in particular.

"Modern Cosmology is founded on the belief that the Hubble Redshift with distance is caused by a Doppler Shift due to receding Motion of the stars / galaxies within the universe, thus leading to the conclusion of an expanding Universe from some primal 'Big Bang'.

"The Wave Structure of Matter solves the many problems and contradictions of this Big Bang theory by deducing that the Hubble Redshift is actually caused by decreasing Wave interactions with distance. (You can read the complete science article at Cosmology)."

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmol...h-distance.htm

[Profpat]

Thank you Nobody for reviewing; An Idea.

I agree the introduction STINKS and confuses more than it elucidates.

I am glad however, that you got the gist or essence to the idea.

Your questions are excellent and have caused me to ponder. Which is good because I like pondering.

I wanted an interdimensional sequential processing,
and so ASSUME:
Point - Dimensionless
Line - String 1st dimension
Circle- Quark 2nd dimension
Sphere-Proton/neutron 3rd dimension
I know when I assume I make an ass out of you and me. ( ASS U ME )
But I would like to classify it as a logical assumption.

Yes any one of the areas can be the "white" area. In fact with movement that is what happens.

Chapter 1 ended with a picture of my grandson.


Chapter 2 is in thought stage.


If I had computer modeling skills, I would like to see (with the 8 positive and negative surfaces), if it could account for nuclear bonding.( the strong nuclear force ). I believe the stacking would account for it as well as the weak nuclear.( you can only stack so much ). I think it would also account for the distance of the orbital of the electron.

Again, thank you for time and effort

Best to you,

Pat