A person reading this document may have questions. I will do my best to answer any and all to the limit of my ability. If you have answers to my questions I would hope you would do the same.

Understanding the beginning is very difficult when one starts in the middle even if one stays to the end. The omnivierse as far as I have been able to gather is steady state but was in a condition of perfect symmetry, time was a cycle, every thing written before was over written, over and over, repeating with out number. It had no features accept that. {It should be noted that Time is the only thing that survived the preconditon of the protouniverse}.

Nothing could happen in the universe until time reppeated at least once, in this form the zero point universes have one feature, spin in any direction, in other words, they are truly omnidirectional. After the first cycle somthing interesting happens.

"Into play comes the number of number of repetitions come number of repetitons come number of repitions come" {please note there was a symmetry break here in the text that can not be resolved and although it doesn't make sense is totally relevant, don't drive your self crazy over it, the quotes around it are to highlight it and hopefully it will become more clear latter when I begin the discussion of the paradox}

The very fact every thing repeated creates a flaw, wrinkel, dimple, knot, or inclusion, call it whatever. The fact that it{the flaw} MUST come from outside the system makes the universe break symmetry. Two revolutions are self-referenving, the path has been traveld before but the universe is omnidrectional.

This is a paradox, if the path, is, how could the body in question been free to spin is any direction? The preuniverse can not resolve this and promptly destroys its self, with staggering [infinite?] energy.

Now there are three things that survive, time energy, and the most interesting paradox. I know this sounds almost child like but that is the way it came out simple and clear and to the point. This as far as I know it is the first tenitive philosophical inroads into a pre Plank time big bang and is origanal and new [I cannot truly know this].

Plese understand any new thought in the Yelm is a VERRY BIG DEAL. There is more but this is all I can give right now, anny feed back would hope stimulate further information.

Evidence please.

It looks very close to being word salad to me. Do you think someone has let a new AI loose on t'internet?

Ophiolite evidence for postulates funny you must be a geometry teacher. guthrie Im not sure but i think im flaterd.

I think that perhaps an Artificial Unintelligence is providing us some entertainment.

Ophiolite. Evidence for postulates? Funny, you must be a geometry teacher.Have you heard of punctuation? Sentence structure? Grammar? Spelling conventions?

I've amended your post so it makes sense. If this wasn't the sense you intended then learn to write.

Nowhere, that I can see, in your opening post, do you state you are offering conjectures, idle thoughts, axioms, or postulates.

Within philosophy and science it is common practice to offer a minimum number of postulates, commensurate with introducing a hypothesis. One does not cite a series of unsubstantiated, radical, unrelated conjectures dressed as speculative whimsy, then claim them as postulates.

Can you offer one iota of support for any of your postulates that would justify taking them, or you, seriously?

ouch
Do to the fact that the human mind egsists in a "dicomatic" universe it can not grasp certan features of the environment in wich it finds its self with out breaking into poistive or negtive conceptual thinking. It the [human mind] can not hold certen information long enough to apply logic and grasp information with out a yes or no answer. If there egisist a paradox that is not a novel construct of whimsy but is a fundimental construct of our universe it then becomes imparitive to establish a phlosophy/mathmatics that can deal with information in a nonliner, rather than ether or pattern. Question, does or have there ever been a mind that can do this? I sugest that it takes more than one mind to hold all of the peaces. First and formost it is crucial to form the first three steps of knowledge and understanding of the system we find our selves in.
postulate #1 Time is the first dimension. It poseses one and only one feature,spin.
postulate #2 a time unit has no information untill it has compleated at least one revolution, at that point the of number of revolutions come into play and symmetry breaks.
postulate#3 as symmetry breaks an identical but oppsite unit is created. The two have the same rotational velocity but oppsite spin. they twist spacetime between them causing them to fall into each other and then annialate. Information is still zero.
postulate#4 in the next revolution the # of revolutions are in play as is part of the flaw. The flaw creates a way to record information. The intresting fact is this happens about half way through the third revolution. One of the great features of consiousnes is self referal and is essental in the developing universe.
postulate #5 time is evolvig literaly through time.
CANGAS I think your back handded complement is quite droll. If it helps, you can call me Forest Gump.

ophiolite what kind of evidence do you want? mathmatics, physical, logical, philosophical. It is one thing to say my spelling is abismal and another to say my syntax is illogical. But I note that no one has disproved the core idea. If you think I am a fool crack pot then stand up and say so. I just want to know why it is hard wired into our brains to not grasp the paradox. Im not getting any traction from you guys. I know that you are wishing thease ideas would go away but weather or not I do they wont. The wild card in life is just that wild. You may ask where did you come from my answer is from out walking in the world.

ophiolite what kind of evidence do you want? mathmatics, physical, logical, philosophical..Physical is the only kind that counts. It should be expressed mathematically, if possible; such mathematics being employed through logic.

It is one thing to say my spelling is abismal and another to say my syntax is illogical. But I note that no one has disproved the core idea. .ethon, your writing style is so abysmal no one can discern what your core idea is.
I know that you are wishing thease ideas would go away but weather or not I do they wont. I don't give a flying aardvark about these ideas, because I have little or no grasp what you are talking about.
If you think I am a fool crack pot then stand up and say so. Certainly. I think you are a fool and a crack pot, and even worse, you can't write worth a damn.
However, I am quite happy to talk to you for as long as it amuses both of us.

Due to the fact that the human mind exsists in a "dicomatic" universe it can not grasp certain features of the environment in which it finds itself, without breaking into positive or negative conceptual thinking.Two things: I have a vocabulary of well over 50,000 words. One of these words is fuck. I shall use it in this example sentence. What the fuck's a dicomatic universe?

You appear to be saying that the Universe is structured in a dualistic form: with positive and negative. Moreover, you believe this structure inherent in the Universe, imposes postive or negative views on our minds.

All I can say is, speak for yourself. I have no difficulty in holding two mutually exclusive thoughts in my head at the same time. For amusement I am working on holding three simultaneous thoughts together at the same time.
This personal experience seems to disprove one of your fundamental claims.
Comments?

The subconscious mind doesn't do well with uncertainty. It's a true fundamentalist. Most people who consider themselves agnostics, for example, may actually be so, speaking analytically. The subconscious, though, is very uncomfortable with this state of affairs and will desparately try to impose simplicity and certainty on the analytical mind. So although people maintain they are agnostics, they may actually fall in the atheist camp or the "believer" camp.

The subconscious must get a very quick read on reality in the interest of survival. Friend or foe? Light or dark? God or No-God? Invisible reality or No invisible reality?

Anyone who can work around the limits of the subconscious in survival mode is unique.

Anyone who can work around the limits of the subconscious in survival mode is unique.Avoid survival mode.

As far as I can make out, its the same old shit about someone capable of grasping TOTALLITY with their limited mind. You know, the kind of thing that SF authors spat out about 30 years ago, having done it to death. The kind of thing that only pseudoscientists try and talk about nowadays. (Although I don tthink colin Wilson is dead yet.)

I see I struck a nerve but if you want to continue then so do I. Saber ratteling is unnessary [I am on the net so I have access to every word ever]. Definition: "dicomatic" is a state where there are two fundimentaly equal but opposite answers to a question and the question is unknown. Occam's razor can not be aplied here, both are simple and beautyful. they both work well but only when mutually exclusive. This can not be resolved but is not a true paradox but a protoparadox{in the second revotution of the universe the symmetry break has not occured yet and all concepts are not fully formed}. A mind must find an answer so takes one of two paths. so you hit the mark but you dont have all of the information. If you review what I said about the Yelm and had seen through the deliberate flaw in what I said. You would know that in the thought experament nothing can change, there must be somthing that allows for shifting of position.{think of the childs toy that has ranks and files of tiles that can move. This toy also has one empty space that allows one of the tile to move into when done right it forms a pattern. The paradox it this empty space and the pattern it follows is what is relivent}.
Every thing fits perfectly excluding the paradox. An argument that might hold watter is that if the universe has infinite number then the infinite must exist so if the universes have a parodox then it must exist. You asked for mathmatics but unfortunatly nobody ever taught me transdimensonal noliner calculas and although i have an idea how it might work you would think me cracked or "flawed" if i gave you a transdimenaional equation{not to mention they are very hard to wright}. P.S. this should go under the heading of philosophy not psydoscience. I hope you can understand that what is happening is every time you try to think about what i am saying your brain smacks into the paradox and must reboot and that hurts.

Right. That's really quite good. Whose sock puppet are you?

dude I am a self made man unclothen before the truth. by the way Foret Gump just asked does this discribe dark matter? I call this chamelion partical the paradoxicon and if you will accept that there is somthing to what i am saying then i wil give you some of it propertys. who has a hand up your concepual fecies distributar any way?

Right. That's really quite good. Whose sock puppet are you?Ahh... you found me out Ophi. I figured if I posted a lenghty single paragraph with little or no punctuation and misused vernacular, and misspellings like "Foret Gump" and "discribe" no one would connect it to me. I'm just having my way with you all.

Now, I just need to post a response as my sock puppet (from my proxy, of course, just to keep Stryder on his toes when he looks at my IP) that denies that I (as ethon jubal) am a "sock puppet" for SkinWalker.

By that time, you will all wonder if I'm actually using a sock puppet or not, and most will decide that I couldn't possibly be -otherwise, why would I tell you. I ask you all: has anyone known me to deliberately lie?

I'm either lying now or telling the truth.

I'm either lying now or telling the truth.You might be in a state of quantum uncertainty.

I posted something in another thread that I think is relevant to what the thread innitiators original thoughts were.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54096&page=2&pp=20

As I mention people are more than likely to find what I've written to have the usual twist of "Paradox" to it. Cosmology as you can guess finds it difficult to answer some questions, the only thing that people can do is try to weigh the content of the universe and what each "theorised" event would achieve to try and work out what actually happened. (Unless they do some 'Remote viewing' tricks and I'm not talking parapsychology)

I dont doubt the truth that I am. Do to the fact that there is no imput from all of you inteligent people gives me a sinking fealing that you are all my 11 grade english teacher. other than that I might as well be talking to the grass. {The sad littel duch boy with his finger in the dyke walks away to his house on a high hill.}

Who's walking away? The little douche boy or the dyke he had his finger in?

Whichever it is, the boy had better wash his finger.

(of course, that being my sock puppet, I'm just playing straight man to myself)

{The sad littel duch boy with his finger in the dyke walks away to his house on a high hill.}Please provide co-ordinates of any high hill in the Netherlands which is in convenient walking distance of any dyke.

Please provide co-ordinates of any high hill in the Netherlands which is in convenient walking distance of any dyke.

I think you have him there!

rubbish
"high" and "convenient' are relative terms
therefore......
dykes were predated by artificial mounds and hills of which, some remain. the odds are good that at least one dyke would be in proximity to at least one or more of that shit

dummkoph!

i heard of this "raising the bar" as a cunning and insidious tactic to intimidate but never one as outrageous as your demand for "co-ordinates". frikkin stratospheric, ja?

i would be ashamed
but i guessing.... not you ;)

Phlog, if a VastGut's doubtless chronically self-serving, yet ultimately sad response is insulting to my cat please let me know (Like Happeh, he remains on ignore. [A Vast Gut, not my cat.])

Ophiolite, nah, he's talking crap.

Gustav, the highest point in the Netherlands is a staggering 322m above sea level. I guess that counts as a hill, considering the featureless landscape, but I'll argue that it's not a 'high' hill, and Ophiolite's point is valid.

Co-ordinates are 56°46'N 6°01'E near enough, btw.

the dutch call it a mountain
like i said, high is relative

/frown

Ophiolite, nah, he's talking crap.

and oafy would know he was being addressed how? :rolleyes:

/cackle

and oafy would know he was being addressed how? :rolleyes:

/cackle

Put someone on ignore, and see how. Learn via experimentation. You know, like scientists do.

{The sad littel duch boy with his finger in the dyke walks away to his house on a high hill}

Please provide co-ordinates of any high hill in the Netherlands which is in convenient walking distance of any dyke.

hmm
i wonder if oafy buys into "finger in the dyke" legend (a new york authors work of fiction) since that was not pounced on with his typically rabid aka foaming at the mouth, style.

now!

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/9329/terphogebeintum7no.jpg

As in the Groningen marshland area, the oldest settlements in the Frisian area date back to the early Iron Age. This applies both to the central areas of Westergo and to the northern part of Oostergo. In this last area a few very high mounds were created. Hogebeintum, at almost 9meters, is the highest mound in the entire Wadden Sea Region. The Frisian region also saw a broad expansion of habitation in the late Iron Age and Roman times as well as colonization of the newly reclaimed salt marsh ridges in the northern part of Westergo in the Early Middle Ages.

Differences in the physical condition and in the history of habitation made that there are strong contrasts within Fryslân in the appearance of the mound landscape. The relatively farflung high mounds on the curved salt marsh ridge in northern Oostergo contrast sharply with the far more dense network of scattered, largely low mounds in central Westergo and the strings of low mounds on the salt marsh ridges of northern Westergo.

Some mounds are built in an elongated shape, which can also be seen in a few German trading mounds. Holwerd is one such. In this context Oldeboorn is also interesting: it lies on the Boorne, and may well have played an important role in the colonization of the peatlands upstream.

In the Frisian mound district too, dyke building began .........Adriaan Haartsen & Dré van Marrewijk (http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/lancewad/report/chap4.5_NL-1.pdf)

so ahh
who wants to eat shit first? :)

Put someone on ignore, and see how. Learn via experimentation. You know, like scientists do.

i rather not
see, if i choose to ignore, i actually do so
the mechanism that you chose not describe is not the province of scientists but rather that of the pseudo scientists aka a little boy sneakily peaking thru his fingers (at his moms tits?)

so ahh
who wants to eat shit first? :)

Tell you what, if you can point out the word 'hill' in that section you c&p'd, I'll have a bite.

But it doesn't say 'hill', it says 'mound'. Maybe I can forgive you if English isn't your first language, but 'mounds' are not 'hills'.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6342/beintum5ss.jpg

The village of Hogebeintum (http://www.drf.nl/toerisme/vvv/dokkum/guide.htm), built on a terp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dutch_fight_against_water#Terp) (an old, artificially kind of hill which protected the inhabitants against the rising sea in the old days)

drop the semantic meanderings and kindly concede
in any case.....
Tell you what, if you can point out the word 'hill' in that section you c&p'd, I'll have a bite.
....i yet have to name a specific dyke as per the original question that is in "close" proximity to hogebeintum. i am just assuming (logically), that there would be one or more, nearby. (google earth sucks!)

so leave the shit alone for the time being ;)

'artificial kind of hill', nope, 'mound' is a more accurate word. So if the term 'hill' is debatable, the term 'high hill' is certainly not proven.

Nice try though.

well let try some dic defs for mound

Main Entry: 2mound
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: origin unknown
1 archaic : HEDGE, FENCE
2 a (1) : an artificial bank or hill of earth or stones; especially : one constructed over a burial or ceremonial site (2) : the slightly elevated ground on which a baseball pitcher stands b : a rounded hill or natural formation
3 a : HEAP, PILE <mounds of work> b : a small rounded mass <a mound of mashed potatoes> webster (http://www.merriamwebster.com)

then lets look at some for hill

Main Entry: 1hill
Pronunciation: 'hil
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hyll; akin to Latin collis hill, culmen top
1 : a usually rounded natural elevation of land lower than a mountain
2 : an artificial heap or mound (as of earth)
3 : several seeds or plants planted in a group rather than a row
4 : SLOPE, INCLINE american heritage (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hill)

yikes! what does usgs (What is the difference between “mountain,” “hill,” .......”? (http://geonames.usgs.gov/faqs.html#18)) say about this shit?

....the term 'high hill' is certainly not proven.

i say!
did i not mention that high/convenient are relative terms?
this jubal guy could be a dwarf or something

Gustav, you link definitions that use terms such as;

"the slightly elevated ground"

and

"a small rounded mass"

and still pursue the 'high is relative' angle.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Give it up.

phlogistician,Still at it, if anyone posts you always think your right the
world is real and lots going on go outside it is okay.


Get a life ARSE HOLE

phlogistician,Still at it, if anyone posts you always think your right the
world is real and lots going on go outside it is okay.


Get a life ARSE HOLE

It's you're a contraction for you are , you illiterate dolt. Seems you spent too much of your youth outside, and not in school.

You talk about me getting a life, yet you waste yours (correct use, of 'your', possessive, take heed) chasing little blobs of light in the sky. That is funny.

And yes, I am an ARSE HOLE. At least I am not a STUPID OBSESSED ILLITERATE ARSEHOLE! Have fun being you, I'm sure it's hilarious.

Great to see you ADMIT what you are.

thanks

Great to see you ADMIT what you are.

thanks

And obviously the point that you are a STUPID ILLITERATE OBSESSED ASSHOLE passed right over your bad haircut.

now now kids

Only in sciforums can a Mountain be made out of a Mole Hill (Mound?)

heh
nice one

god you must be bored,,,,

god you must be bored,,,,

Bored enough to take part, or make a meaningless contribution? Who is more boring, therefore, Norv?

The sock puppets perhaps?

And yes, I am an ARSE HOLE.

i disagree
you rock