[N0B0DY]

The Theory of Nothing (TON), which as you will see I interpret as being synonymous to the Theory of Everything (TOE), is based upon the absolute unification - and hence negation - of the universal forces that produce all natural phenomena. It is a journey toward the absolute realization of the equivalence of “nothing” and “everything” in order to draw logical conclusions about the nature of existence.

It has long been decided that there are “things” and then there are “no things”. Yet the further we delve into matter, the further we verify the “space” between so-called particles. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10

“Things” are formed through interactions that cancel out at zero as a whole; the realization of the non existence of the absolute state of "one" solves all seeming dichotomy paradoxes; and all massive particles (there is provably no such thing as rest mass) are created through the interactions of a massless substance (light) that provably does not literally exist. http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/science1202.html

I suggest a returning to First Philosophy and ask: how can the universe, or rather omniverse, be contained by a non-existent exterior, let alone expand?

[N0B0DY]

Relative mass in motion can be explained without the paradoxical side effects by it being recreated over an infinite number of non-dimensional points, much like an animation on a computer screen. There is no literal movement, but a recreated quantity of bits of information gives the impression of movement. Taken a step further, the distance between relative point masses can be explained in terms of time instead of space.

Looking at your hand in front of your face, you would naturally think is different from getting a slap in the face because there is a spatial distance between them, but if your hand and face occupied the same non-dimensional point at different times, then space must be an illusion of time. The "view" of the hand and the "slap" by the hand can be the result of slowing down the speed of light, which I propose is absolute (non-existent) because there is no distance to travel. This is based in part on the Uncertainty Principle whereby as we pinpoint absolute position, momentum is thence absolute; zero space means then absolute speed.

To make it perhaps clearer: a decrease of this speed creates not only observable mass, the infinite gathering of infinitesimal particles, but stretches time to infinity proportionate to the reduction in speed, hence the reason for the claim of "c" in only a relatively-vacuous vacuum.

All possible states, every conceivable scenario, can be seen then to occur at the same point, but at different times. Whereby, in the instance of the hand referred to above, it has already slapped you in the face but not until you are consciously/observably aware of it. This is the point when consciousness becomes a factor in merging with the subconscious functioning of subatomic particles, when the sensory awareness of the hand becomes a realized state, from the reduction of absolute speed which increases space to the point of impact. Again, based on momentum through time, not space.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 07-24-2006, 05:34 PM

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

"You're headed in the right direction, Nobody. Keep up the great theorizing... Take a look at a void with the absolute lack of heat or matter___a possible thermodynamic self-creating universe. A void without heat has infinite energy of temperature heading to infinite sub-zero___no? And from infinite sub-zero, just one more step to infinite heat___the infinite sub-zero pressure would require it___no? Is it possible for such a state to produce the first light gasses, to create the first light star___all from the zero void...?" - Lloyd Gillespie

[N0B0DY]

Yes on all counts, Lloyd.

Most folks underestimate the mathematical implications of the void, eventhough Einstein's theoretical physics wasn't confirmed until years later. That's what the whole debate is about regarding empirical proof of String Theory, based on unobservable data, and whether solid theory is enough to proclaim an accurate depiction of the Universe.

[N0B0DY]

When we propose a model, any model, that functions from the start from a relative "one" or within the framework of "one" literal universe, it requires a spatial construct for it to exist in. The dichotomy paradox lies in the fact that there is no space, we've both agreed to that above, and for that very simple elementary-school reason all relative theories fail and will forever fail in describing an accurate account of universal functioning - a "Theory of Everything."

I propose 0/0 in order to not only solve any and all seeming paradoxes, but to depict the means of creating illusory functioning from absolutely nothing. When we equate 0 with 1-1, the whole can be realized as greater than the sum total of matter and antimatter, of which the omniverse consists of, and this whole - similar to zero-point energy at both ends of the energy spectrum - nets to zero.

Then if existence is an a priori requisite, I conclude that relatively the observable universe exists, if we must, but absolutely it doesn't.

[N0B0DY]

"Nobody, if you're full, I can still divide you with a sword..."

A little humor from Lloyd Gillespie, of whom this thread is semi-dedicated to for giving me so much of his time. Needless to say, there is no sword that can literally divide the fullness of absolute space (matter).

[N0B0DY]

Now that we have put on our harder-than-diamond, impenetrable, sword-proof, spatial armor on...

Like Einstein we want to know what light quanta are, so that the castles we build aren't for nothing. I'm trying to reduce the complex particles and use simply photons and gravitons, so we can figure out a way to remove their particulate nature. The SLAC experiments are evidence that light can be thought of as the sole factor in the creation of reality - repeatedly producing both matter and antimatter - from the non-lived to the short-lived to the stable according to energy exchanges based on the elusive, and I say illusive, "c."

If we put our minds together, we could simplify the model by proposing something like +1 (matter) -1(antimatter) = 0 (photon/graviton) - which don't exist at the zero point, and we have a type of creation-from-nothing in all directions. It is like a universal annihilation event of absolute matter and antimatter resulting in one illusory photon outwardly and one graviton inwardly. The net effect is zero - changeless - but the possibilities leading to probabilities leading to observable reality, based on the opposing abstract absolutely-solid and absolutely vacuous perspectives, are infinite.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you Nobody for continuing this most worthy endevour,we truly need to understand
what we stand-under!No-thing and some-thing are in effect the same-thing when looked
at from an absolute perspective.

Here and now is always here and now however we enclosed within our temporal vechicle
become confused and then call this confusion TIME?


warmest regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

My pleasure, Michael, and I agree that time is the sole creator of the "here and now" which from any and all possible observational/realistic points of view are forever in the illusory past.

[N0B0DY]

Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 09-06-2007, 11:56 PM

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

"Nobody, many scientists and metaphysicists have been making the Platonian and Cartesian mistakes for centuries, and many, even Einstein, often made this mistake, of fundamentally thinking from the abstract, instead of the fundamentally and scientifically real. Of course, the choice is all ours to make, but sound science requires that we do our scientific thinking from the factual absolute matter side of the mind, and the meta-thinking from the abstract side of the mind. The abstract/metaphysical can never encompass the scientific side of the mind, because tis impossible of ever being scientific, yet the scientific can encompass the abstract/metaphysical mind, because the scientific random evolution of the universe produced the bio/abstract/metaphysical in the bio-era___quite recently, I might add, in universal matter evolution time.

"As I've said before, Einstein's mind may have been thinking somewhat abstract and metaphysical, when he dreamed up e=mc^2, but at the moment of this formula's creation, he'd obviously switched to scientific factual mode, as it's clearly been proven true and workable, as have many of his other ideas. This however, does not in any way mean he was entirely metaphysical, even though much of his thoughts and ideas were, his science is sound science. It's not that the abstract can not produce sound scientific thought, it's that the abstract can never produce sound scientific product and fact. The abstract/metaphysical is eternally locked in matter's scientific mythological state of mind. It exists, but it's not real___It's illusion. You see, I see all waves as matter, even the most infinitesimal of all___mind/thought/spirit waves." - Lloyd Gillespie