Attraction Paradox - Zero Point Theory

so zero objective value is actually positive freedom sense which is for most intelligents ones the result so the confirmation of truth superiority becoming an objective realisation fact, all or whatever is ended perfectly from its causes and effects so knowing that is the superior perspective that generate conscious to b while the conscious of superior realisations is out of positive free sense

that is why freedom rights is about those that consider and mean clearly truth rights first
since any conscious know being free exclusively from what objective truth realize perfectly of anything that might occur confusing all

so freedom rights should be to those that accept to give themselves to objective superiority by confirming constantly truth superior realisations being alive and mean clearly being out of their true self for freedom right value being else

like if u know everything from realizing it all, the result is positive freedom sense for sure that everyone mean by saying that knowledge is freedom
but that freedom sense is not the same to each true knowledge realisations while it is a right for any true objective realisations
that freedom sense is not about what each could love doing more, since that freedom could mean truth rights or else hate

what is sure is that freedom right mean isolation from all and else being a right to any objective right, so the recognition of else existence by not meaning it so that right could exercise its freedom peacefully

imagine if truth was free from what it did realize logically i guess it would mean to realize its freedom by forcing every awareness or absolute conscious to act alone responsable

that is why it is very important to valorize the concept of right in minds, bc any goes back to what meant it first so to its true realisator, that is why being else so free of what truth do is important too, but then the concept of else recognition is crucial in order to b else in positive free terms

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I note that the moderator(s) feel the above post is useful to the threads topic so I will continue shortly disregarding it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have come to realise that there may be no mathematical system that can be used to describe this paradox as it, the mathematics, involves a sort of 4 dmensional structure.
ie: see the simplified image below:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note that the top equation, relative zero space, "implies t= > 0 duration" [presence of time flowing as "anything of substance" indicated by the values of +1 and (-)1 require time to be a continuum]
*note: possibly replacing the numeric values of 1 with an algerbraic symbol maybe useful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have a feeling that the mathematics used to support the "Uncertainty principle" may be useful....as infinite reduction means that "absolute determinism" is unavailable and thus a paradox is revealed by proxy.

 

You think maths struggles with 4 dimensional things? There's mathematics for any dimensional spaces, including infinite dimensional ones.

And you concluded this by not knowing or understanding any of the mathematics? As I've said before, you must be deliberately trying to be ridiculous.

 

ahh such is the nature of genius.... you are a genius Alphanumeric, even though your derogatory and non-helpful posts show other wise...reminds me of the film "Good will hunting" staring the comedian Robyn Willams.

Are you a consumer?
I am...
Now that I know where to look I might actually offer you a job...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no I did not use mathematics to conclude anything. What I did was look at the rational of the uncertainty principle, then compare that rational with the attraction paradox and "bingo" we have an almost exact match. Context of application and depth of use, is really the only disparity. Mathematics, like any language, is only a symbolic abreviation of ratio-nal and logic with the primary function, to communicate complexity in the most effective/efficient manner.. [you should know this of course]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The above diagram shows the use of two versions of zero one requiring a value for time for it to exist and the other not requiring time [directly] to exist.
The absolute zero of the centre of gravity [COG] is very real although utterly immaterial and certainly not ONLY just an abstraction as you have suggested.
The uncertainty principle is, to me, simply the application of infinite reduction and it's outcome demonstrates, to me, the paradox of zero. When applied to mass in a field of reducing attraction can demonstrate why absolute rest is impossible.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

which deals with specifically position and momentum. [If I am correct!]
I believe at the moment that the "uncertainty principle" can indeed provide mathematical and logical support for the attraction paradox which I feel, [early days on this] will take that UC principle one step further in it's evolution. It also shed new light on the "observer effect" due to the zeropoints direct relationship with human perception and interconectedness [ universal constancy - human homogeny - objectivity ]

 

I know that what you post here is the limits of your capabilities but you're very much mistaken if you think what people like Prom, myself, Guest etc post here is any indication of our capabilities. The fact of the matter is you wouldn't understand it even if we talked about it.

I have a job. A job which I love and where I get to do stuff some of the people here would give their right arm to do. Besides, there's nothing you could offer me in terms of jobs which would be intellectually fulfilling. Not given the sorts of tosh you come out with.

You make assertions about things within mathematics and physics which you haven't got any knowledge of. A rational person wouldn't do such a thing. Thus either you're just wacko or you're doing all of this deliberately.

The way in which you're piling ever more ridiculous things on top of one another, like the whole Egyptian thing, is very odd. Until about 2 or 3 months ago you were at least lucid, even if you were extremely naive and poorly informed about science. Now this nonsense, along with your frankly baffling behaviour towards myself, seems to be the majority of what you post. You're making lengthy sequences of non-sequitors, either in regards to this 'paradox' you talk about or in your interactions with me. Such as saying you might offer me a job. You already know I'm employed, doing scientific research, and that I very much enjoy it. So why did you say such thing? It's either a lack of lucidity or you're fishing for particular types of responses. By the way, how is tracking down everyone I've ever called dishonest to see if they've contracted a repository disease going? Or was that just a laughable attempt at intimidation which you've now realised doesn't really say very good things about how you spend your time, nor your reasoning abilities? Perhaps you're too busy trying to claim your 'zero point theory' connects tornadoes and the pyramids to do it?

 

Tracking is going fine.... [Should be around Feb/March 2013 when completed]
What you haven't yet realised I guess is that zero point theory not only provides for the gravitational constant via the Centre of Gravity [ which I might add is never able to be center of mass orientated as it is always a culminant center of gravity. [ an average point not a fixed point ] it also provides for the interconnected ness of all things which then generates constants like inertia etc. and allows cosmic expansion with out a deviation i those constants. But most importantly it provides the interconnected ness of life forms such as humans which currently is expressed in terms like paranormal or psychic connectedness etc. Well if quantum entanglement is paranormal then so be it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It aso when evidenced correctly will open the door for an understanding of "socio-psychic" illnesses currently beyond sciences capability such as Paranoid Schizphrenia [NPD - socio-psychic dysfunction ] Asthma, and various other like ADHD, forms of Autism, chronic fatigue syndrome, Fibrus Myalga, Arthritic Conditions, tumors and various cardio vascular dysfunctions including Heart Block etc...

The theory brings all facits of human existance including theosophy into the realm of science, including human behavioural sciences, psychology, parapsychology, ancient mythology. It provides a mechanism for objectivity that removes the need to use words like subjectivity in a typical philosophocal discussion. It reinforces sciences claim to objectivity, which according to current philosophy is impossible [ as all things are subjective ]

The theory is very powerful in finally clarifying all those things that humans have found perplexing and contradictory.

You have yet to refute the logic of zero point theory because quite simply...... you can't refute it.

I would be more than happy if someone COULD refute it properly as then I could put it away and chalk it all up to experience and a bad joke...

Now if you were honest you would at least attempt to understand the logic and rational first before trying to discredit it....
put it up here at sciforums for everyone to see.. go on see if you can throw egg on my face but do it properly....instead of dishonestly sniping from the side.

 

It is quite rational and a sign of competancy to understand the rational behind the abreviated symbology that mathematics is.

 

You're quite right that your "theory" can't be refuted logically, that's not because it's logically sound but because there's not as single logically redeeming feature in it.

This happens to be an area I know a little bit about, and although not perfectly understood it is understood well enough to know what the causes are and how to treat it. In the case of what I believe you mean, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome, it is understood that these are most likely two names for the same condition. They are generally have a psychological cause that is treated with cognitive behaviour therapy. Another illness that has similar symptoms is myalgic encephalomyelitis or ME, which seems to be caused by a viral infection, is detectable on a brain MRI and can be treated with drugs or simply waiting for it to go away (the duration of ME is less than the duration of FM, which is a genuinely chronic condition). Unfortunately, unless you have or are close to someone who has suffered from one of these conditions you are unlikely to be aware of this, and that includes most general practitioners. When presented with symptoms similar to FM and ME a GP will probably run basic tests to make sure it's not something like hypothyroidism, and then prescribe SSRI's and politely tell you to go away.

Other diseases you mention schizophrenia, arthritis, cancers, heart block are all very well understood and researched by standard science and the other ones are of course being researched and understood better every day. I have to say I find your attitude deeply annoying. Why do you think you can simply stroll in and revolutionise science? That is arrogant in the extreme.

 

so uhm ....tell me what is the logic you fail to understand?

and you claim that fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are understood to be the same condition..

Compare:

with

and your statement:

can you explain your statement?

None of those disorders are able to be cured and are only treated for their symptoms. In fact I don't think medical science has managed to "cure" any illnesses at all, though I may be mistaken.

The arrogance is not on my part but on those not prepared to take the theoretics I propose seriously. It is after all their arrogance that prevents them from doing so..
and I do understand that empirical evidence is required for any of this to be taken seriously...
the Attraction Paradox is easilly evidenced and the rest just logically follows.

 

See anything arrogant about the following:

and what is the only possible candidate for the above job?
Are these arrogant statements?

this statement you have written...now that is arrogant...

possibly you would like to quote the logic you find so ,..... uhm illogical...

and possibly you are interpreting "confidence" as arrogance...and I do have very good reason to be confident.

 

I apologise if my apparent confidence has disturbed you.
I do have a close friend who suffers excruicating fibromyalgia to the extent that even staying in bed with serious painkillers [opiates] is not adequate. Fortunately for her, the bouts of symptoms being revealed are infrequent but she has suffered this condition most of her post pubescent life. She also suffers from depression due to the intractible nature of this condition. [ she is extremely gifted intellectualy ]

Once zero point theory is understood and accepted, therapy can be made available for this and similar conditions.

The Fibromyalgia is caused primarilly from her muscles tensing due to a percieved psychic threat against her freewill. [long term reactive tensing will cause intense fatigue in the muscles of a "compression" type not "extension" type]

What people do not realise is that when a person is being unduely influenced whether they be a high achiever in sport or intellectual arenas such as physics [ Stephen Hawkins - motor neurone disease, Tesla - psychiatric conditions and so on] they are subjected to influences that their bodies may not be able to manage adequately. Especially if they show any signs of savant-ism or significant potential in this regard.

I have a grandson who has demonstrated similar.

Once it can be shown the nature of social psychic function there to dysfunction most of these chronic conditions can be treated in ways that allow better management of those influences regardless of whether those influences are of a positive loving kind or negative "hateful" kind.

According to Zero point theory extended: Asthma for example is caused by a persons socio-psychic sensitivity [via the zero point ] striking the Thymus gland causing swelling and the desire to terminate breathing via the stimulation of the Laryngeal nerves. Again it is usually a loving influence that provokes the attacks as the person must maintain freewill at all times and even the pressure for them to breath applied by someone else good will intentions is sufficient to trigger a freewill protection response. The advent of the pandemic of Child hood incidence of asthma is I believe directly related to the parents fear of the child dying in it's sleep [SIDS]. Applying instinctive and sometimes deliberate "will" pressure to keep the child breathing and once the psychic connection is fully established the child is both dependant on the support and rejecting the influence simultaneously.

My 28 year old daughter suffers this condition with occassional hospitalisation required. One of the reason I separated from her mother when she was only 4 yo was because I felt I was in someway over influencing her breathing and I had to leave them so that she could go on.

It is also a fairly modern situation, exasperating relative minor incidence from around 1985/86 when it appears that most of these new-age conditions seemed to seriously emmerge.

So I do understand your concern about my so called "arrogance" and I am sorry if I have distressed you in some way.

 

Those things, along with the list of specifics ZPT supposedly will address, are so obviously ridiculous that it baffles me why you're engaging in this nonsense.

You haven't provided any logic.

Obviously not because I already explained to you how your understanding of zero was mistaken and you ignored it. So please don't pretend you're approaching this in a methodical and honest way, you aren't.

I, and others, have already asked you to demonstrate the validity of anything you say. You couldn't provide. Thus there's nothing which needs to be addressed. You say 'the logic and the rational [sic]' but you have no logic nor rationale. You make claims about maths and physics you obviously don't know, which is neither honest nor rational. You ignore when people who do know about maths and physics correct you on things. That is neither honest nor rational. Saying, without any justification, you'll address 'all those things that humans have found perplexing and contradictory' is neither honest nor rational.

Except you don't know any mathematics and you ignore it when someone who does know some mathematics corrects you on a fairly central thing for your 'work'. This veneer of "Oh I just want someone to discuss my work. I'll listen to corrections!" pious behaviour is nonsense.

There isn't any. He cannot quote what you haven't said. If you think you've said something logically sound, that some conclusion of yours is logically sound, please give an example.

You have no reason to be confident. You have accomplished nothing.

 

so very easily baffled aren't you?

for someone who is repeatedly claiming others to be deliberately dishonest, this is an amazing statement...

show were you have done so with post number and quote please, as I may have missed it.

are you claiming the logic of the uncertainty principle is invalid? are you nuts.. your boss is going to have a field day...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

did I see the word "discussion" just now...... provide evidence that you have made the slightest attempt at discussion please as I fail to see any.

Please refer to the OP for all your information requirements.

ahh but I do and have.. very much so...

 

@ alphanumeric;
would you entertain the idea of discussing the "paradox" at the heart of the "uncertainty principle" in the physics and math forum?
and then include the "observer effect" in the discourse? Or would you prefer not to allow discussion on things that don't fit in with your agenda?
Perhaps you may even like to start a thread on the topic yourself?

I, and I am sure others, would be very interested in your erudite views on the physical and material nature of the "uncertainty principle"....and possibly lift your thread start statistics from 55.

 

@ Alphanumeric & Prometheous and others:
can you see the rudementary logic displayed in this image?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clue Note: that the value (-)1 is a value of substance therefore greater than absolute zero.

If you can't then I have proof of psychic interferrance.

edit: there is a value missing from the relative zero part? Can you work out what it is?

Imagine you are in a court of law and this image is tendered as evidence to support the very subtle nature of psychic interferrance.

 

Psychic interferrance:
Many martitial arts employ what is referred to as "stealth" tactics, a Ninjutsu sensi for example will be able to move undetected through masses of people, infiltrate his oppositions head quarters etc etc. The art of stealth is only taught to extremely proficient masters of the Ninjutsu and other similar martial arts codes. It is not pubically discussed and maintained under a veil of mystery.

In my language I refer to this as "the blind eye effect" where by a persons capacity to "see" and percieve is compromised by deliberate or instinctive/reactive psychic influence.
If you can not see the rudementary logic diplayed in the above image you are being forced by psychic persuasion to "turn a blind eye" so that you can not see the simple logic presented. It takes advantage of the "Scotoma" where the optic nerve exits the retina of the eye. It is the key psychic ability that can be used for many different malicious activities. It can also be used for benign and benevolent purposes as well.
Any one who has mastery over the blinding effect can induce this upon someone else. Many secret organisations have been using it for years with the ambition to further their ambitions regarding power and control.

Demonstrated quite well in fiction by a character in the Star Wars franchise, Obi-Wan Kenobi, when he utilises this skill to avoid detection by simple minded and naive Emperial guards.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

============

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so can you see the simple logic displayed or not?
and what value is missing from the relative zero space part?

 

You're claiming to have a 'theory' which addresses disease, science and everything humans find perplexing. Why someone who has no experience of science and no evidence for any of their claims would claim such a thing is baffling. The fact I can't grasp the thought processes of someone who is either trolling or losing their grip on reality is not a negative thin

Please provide an example where you justify any of your claims with sound logic. Remember how I asked you to show an actual paradox arises with zero? You couldn't. Instead you just asserted it and ignored my correction about the nature of zero within mathematics.

Here. You had made assertions about the nature of zero in mathematics, that (-1)+(+1)=0 was a paradox, and I explained how it is sound and even necessary.

The uncertainty principles isn't something you came up with, you're just repeating things other people have done. Furthermore, you haven't shown it is a part of your work because you haven't shown it emerges from it. This is a necessary thing in science. You have some 'theory'. You have talked about the uncertainty principle. You have not demonstrated the latter follows from the former. The uncertainty principle is formally derived from base principles within quantum mechanics. You haven't shown any of such things exist within your work. This is therefore actually a demonstration of how you don't provide logic. When Heisenberg published the uncertainty principle he shows how you arrive at it step by step from the base postulates of quantum mechanics, namely non-commuting observables. That was step by step logic. You haven't provided that. Saying "I have presented logical things because I assert something from the mainstream arises in my work" isn't sound logic. The mainstream work might be logical but if you can't show it follows logically from your assertions then you're making a logically flawed claim and any logic within the mainstream work is not taken to be a a part of your work.

Can you demonstrate the uncertainty principle follows from your work? Step by step. This will necessitate you doing some mathematics, which you have none of in your work. You also lack the necessary mathematical knowledge and capabilities to even attempt to work with such stuff so you cannot possibly have done the formal derivation within your work, even if by some random chance it does follow from some formalisation of this 'theory' (a formalisation you haven't got either). Your work is a sequence of random assertions you claim are all connected. You do not demonstrate they are connected within the frame of this 'theory'. That is why Prom, myself and others have commented about how you have failed to make your case. Until you can provide such justification/formulation there is no science or logic for us to discuss in regards to your work. Piling assumption on guess on random assertion increases the chances you're just spouting nonsense. The chance three random assertions are connected in a methodical scientific manner is lower than two random assertions. You're into the dozens of random assertions now.

See the just provided link. You were asked to present justification and you failed. If you cannot provide justification for assertions nor evidence for your claims the discussion is over before it began.

I know laypersons might look at a pop science book and think that simply listing results is how science should be presented but it isn't. For every result which takes up a page in a pop science book there will be hundreds, even thousands, of papers describing and exploring how to reach that result from previous results. Having an idea "I think A relates to B!" can happen in an instant, a flash of inspiration, but there's still plenty of hard work to do in actually fleshing out how A relates to B, making the relationship precise and providing as much evidence as possible. If you'd ever looked at proper scientific literature you'd see this. Go have a look on www.arxiv.org. Abstract, introduction and conclusions take up less than 10% of many papers because the most difficult and the most interesting thing is often the step by step path of logic and evidence which goes from the introduction to the conclusions. You, qwc, Farsight, Magneto et al, none of you do the bit in the middle and without that you have no justification for thinking your conclusions follow from your initial assumptions. Heck, most of the time you don't even say "Here are my postulates", you just rattle off random assertions, one after the other.

Your information requirements might be met by the first post but it only serves to show how pitiful your standards of evidence and reason are.

Please provide an example of how your 'theory' allows for a demonstrably accurate model of a phenomenon in the real world. Show it's derivation from base assumptions, step by step.

There is no paradox. There might be results you find counter intuitive or difficult to understand but that doesn't make them paradoxes.

And what, pray tell, is my 'agenda'? I ask you to provide evidence for your claims. To show your conclusions follow logically from one another. I point out how far your work falls short of meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I point out your assertions of paradoxes are without justification, even relying on misrepresentations of mathematics.

A rational, informed discussion on the uncertainty principle would be fine. Unfortunately I do not think you have the necessary understanding of the uncertainty principle to have a particularly informed discussion. If all you plan to do is make assertions about the existence of supposed paradoxes, which you cannot justify, then that wouldn't be welcome. If you wish to call that an 'agenda' then so be it.

No doubt you've got some direction you wish to discussion to do in so I wouldn't be the best person to start such a thread. I'd immediately go into the details of its derivation, which will involve concepts and methods you don't understand. Hence why I find your use of an uncertainty inequality humorous, in that you obviously don't have the mathematical background to grasp how that expression comes about, probably not even grasp the inequality itself, yet you go around saying "Oh there's a paradox!". It's like me opening a book written in Chinese, pointing to a random line and saying "There's a grammatical mistake there".

Unlike some of the people here, I don't feel the need to start threads to tell people about what science related ideas I think I may have, as you have done with this thread. This forum is for laypersons to ask questions and discuss things, so the questions I have about maths or physics aren't going to get much of a decent response here. For example, any question I might wish ask pertaining to the uncertainty principle is going to be above the level of most people here and thus I ask my work colleagues instead. Of course I could just start threads where, without request, I monologue about some bit of maths or physics but what would be the point? People can read Wikipedia and it would serve little purpose beyond trying to show off and, as I've told you, I don't have that existential requirement..... unlike some people who like to start threads about their work..... *cough* . If someone else wants to know about some area of maths or physics I know about then they can start a thread and I might answer.

I know hacks tend to measure their scientific worth by the number of threads about their 'ideas' they can make but some of us are a little above that.

Ah yes, secret societies. Tell me, was 9/11 an inside job? Did Osama kill JFK? Was it a secret Space Nazi craft from the planet Niribu which crashed at Roswell?

Yes, the (-1)+(+1)=0 which you've taken from actual mathematics. That's sound logic, derived from the axioms of mathematics through a great deal of work by experts in logic. The rest is noise.

I'd expect the judge holds you in contempt for wasting everyone's time. Beyond more assertions about concepts, such as negative numbers and zero, you don't understand can you back up anything you say? I know you might think asking "and what value is missing from the relative zero space part? " is a sort of "Gotcha!" thing if neither Prom nor I answer but it's no more supporting of your case than I asked you to guess how much change I have in my pockets would support my position.