Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[Meem]

U-in-verse? Thumbs up or down? — Meem

Sounds good, if we can find a use. I suppose that either the verses of the universe are unified into one poem, or that there is only one verse line—one universe.

Either way, we are of the universe, being a subset of its stuff; this stuff having come alive; so, u-in-verse, you being in it and/or a poetic expression of it.

For one, or U, who are in verse, all the time ... I don't imagine a use would be hard to find. Austino-verse, where first things come first and do not require no big banging or nothing -required- to hold everything together. For together it always has been, and together it will always be verses, not to be confused with versus, versing. And sum-times in all the times, u-in-verse with others in-u-verse and form harmony. But only, sum-times, in all time, forever time. But all the U's gott be carefull, or they might crack the crystal lense on the cosmic projector.

[racecar]

looks like you guys might be bridging the gap enthalpically...or is it entropically?? I'm gonna pick entropically..cause the jumpship travels from east to west.

[austintorn@aol.com]

In the Austinoverse, 3D unbounded space is itself the 3D ‘surface’ boundary of the finite 4D hypercube that it encloses. So, round and round it goes in this other way, too.

(Meem, did you know that your name is spelled backwards?)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nobody and Melanie, some more about your favorite topic of nothing in Bogie's thread, starting here:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post132363

[Nobody Nowhere]

why can the axis not spin to as a free radical structure for ... a moment? it is our vanity of ponder from a limited platform of view .. time relative and all that g

I don't think there is time or space at a singularity, but I will look into it further.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Well, just look at RNA/DNA structure__It's in every living thing as a long tightly curled chiral helix__How, unless a chiralling motion were at work at the boson level...? Quantum mechanics doesn't allow cloning of protons, electrons, i.e., fermions__yet bosons are known to super-position, as in lasers, so the only way to build such new RNA/DNA structures within the life forming soups, having fermions, is for the incoming photons/bosons to pass through, from the em-spectrum, to the elemental table of fundamental life-soups' complex substances, spinning and chiralling all the way, to not clone, but build new electrons and protons from scratch, and some other sources through food intakes of the micro-organisms present, etc.__and since these RNA/DNA strands are so long and curled so tightly, my mind can't envision any other possible method of construction__for the extra fundamental fermion particles required to build life... It's just a loose guessed at model, but the pieces fit...

Much of these ideas were worked up when e-mailing and trading ideas with Louis Kauffman, America's Cybernetics Institute President, and he's working in this area of how DNA evolves into first life-structures, as his major field, other than complex mathematics, is quantum biology. He's also a scholar of Charles Sanders Peirce, who was a logician, mathematician, zoologist, biologist and chemist philosopher-scientist back in the late 1800's, and did much of this groundwork with diagramatic logics and graph logics, interpretable into many fields and models__He also did extensive pre-quantum science with light, photons, hydrodynamics, gravity and the U.S. Governments Weights and Measurements Dept., where he was the first to suggest standardizing U.S. measurements on the wavelength of sodium atoms... His father and he were America's premiere mathematicians, logicians and scientists in the 1800's... His diagrams and graphs are really like a highly complex model logic, that yields a great deal of information about real world theories and elicits new facts...

I've written larger posts about the RNA/DNA constructions of first-bio-life constructions on my off-site blogs, listed at the bottom of my threads pages, and in my TQ site profile...

Pardon my absence. I was busy reading your blog and the links you provided, and ended up reading Wikipedia front to back. I think I also found a nice home for RascalPuff's book on Scribd if any of you are seeking a similar venue.

I wanted to be sure before I could respond with confidence, Lloyd, but after a great deal of deliberation I have to stand by Einstein's proclamation of there being no such thing light quanta.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Pardon my absence. I was busy reading your blog and the links you provided, and ended up reading Wikipedia front to back. I think I also found a nice home for RascalPuff's book on Scribd if any of you are seeking a similar venue.

I wanted to be sure before I could respond with confidence, Lloyd, but after a great deal of deliberation I have to stand by Einstein's proclamation of there being no such thing light quanta.

How are you defining light quanta...???

Most differences are in the definitions...

What's a laser, if not light quanta__extremely concentrated...???

Lights on my truck work good at night...

Sex, out in the light of the moon is fun...

[Nobody Nowhere]

How are you defining light quanta...???

Most differences are in the definitions...

What's a laser, if not light quanta__extremely concentrated...???

Lights on my truck work good at night...

Sex, out in the light of the moon is fun...

I mean quantized light, discrete emission and absorption, within atoms. Judging from your photonic story, I think it's too much of a bad boy to be chained down.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I mean quantized light, discrete emission and absorption, within atoms. Judging from your photonic story, I think it's too much of a bad boy to be chained down.

It probably is__I have no idea if we can truly define it, but as to my way of defining the absorptions and emissions, science knows the electron takes on and loses mass by way of photons, as far as we know, by the rad-emission detectors. I know these work, as I've often worn them in the nuke plants. We aren't allowed on site without our dose-meters. I hate it when they start ticking and rapping like a machine gun...

So, I know we measure em, as I've done so myself__but to actually define much about the hyper-fine structure of the photon absorptions and emissions directly__that is to exactly what they are__other than Feynman's arrows and diagrams of QED has done, is beyond me, and all of science__I think... It's the only undefined known thing in the Universe__as far as I know... I mean, yeah there are the structures inside the protons, but they fundamentally gotta be made from these fundamental lil' buggers also...

This is why I stated I'm only interpreting all models generally__so far__as I don't see a full definition I yet agree with, fully... How in hell that much energy and mass can be carried in such a tiny almost unmeasurable packet, is beyond me__and what real path it takes through space__chiral or what is still open to proofs not yet done... What's inside a photon, to you?__or should I ask what's it truly made of iyo...??? Can we even define what the absolute is, other than 'Is' or 'FS'...???

I know some__and possibly you__can say strings, but there's just no evidence__What-so-ever__and even if there were, that's still not defining what they be made of... This ultimate lil' bugger seems eternally undefinable, as far as my investigations show, and that's what was stated in that graphic a few or more pages back__The Mystery Field__The Mystery Photon...

[austintorn@aol.com]

There nothing to make things or strings of—and that's the answer contained right there inside the statement.