throng

If x = 1 any power = 1 so x to the zero power = 1 If x is not equal to 1 any power is not equal to one except the power of zero 2^x doubles so 2 to the power of zero is half of two = 1 5^x is 5, 25 125 so increases five fold so 5to the power of 0 is 5/5 = 1

Here is a great lecture ot the subject.

One just makes a guess which seems plausible then experiments, if the experiment shows it works the experience is it works, if the experiment doesn't work experience shows it. Basically, experience verifies and constitutes proof. If you want to believe bible stories fine, but they are not verified by experience.

You mean an electron which is surrounded by uncertainty? Of course a scientist would love to make certain some particle, but I think we've moved beyond that. I'm sure if you consider it based upon science you'll find your own argument has no merit, considering the uncertainty principle alone. Besides, wouldn't that be an electron positron pair?

I make this statement that the properties of forms are actually a distinction between them. We could just use a point and know there is nothing that fits inside it, and as it has no relationship with anything else, it is just a distinction from nothing, but there is no way to justify it. It is a rash assumption. To create something is to define it by that which it is not, but there is no validity in saying something is not nothing as this assumes nothing is a quality one could use in a relationship, and of course it isn't. What we create is a between. A distinction between. A difference. Our minimal distinction is a duality, which is a particular and exact value consistant of one distinct difference, so the forms have one quality which isn't a justified property, nor is the distinction between them quantifiable, but we do have an exaction, albeit it completely subjective.

The difference between things determines the qualities and properties of them, hence if a thing were isolated it would have have no definition at all and couldn't be said to exist. To have any definition things have to be compared. It seems we do not actually observe things; we observe the difference between and quantify the relationship. To exist is to differentiate ourselves from all other things, yet all things only exist by being different to all others. In that it seems there are only different things the primary discernment consists of one difference between two things, but this one difference defines the exact properties of both, so they have the exact same definition (eachother) yet they are not the same... considering the above... This leads to rethinking things.

I think it has to do with the energy density of empty space, which is constant. The big bang started with extreme density and ever since the mass of the universe has been spreading out becoming furthur apart and hence less dence. Space has a constant density (cosmological constant) and matter has a decreasing density. The ratio between these densities starts as very large and as it become less and less it shrinks at a slower and slower rate: I just wildly speculate the density of space exerts a pressure (well it does) and since the density of matter is less and less the pressure of space meets less resistance hence expansion accelerates. There was a rather bizarre paper that isn't really accepted because of the ironic nature of it but it was mathematically substantiated to a large degree and won a prestigious award I think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8IcciRHGvQ So ... Bob's yer uncle. I think this lecture has been posted before but... damn it's good!

Well, personally I'm into the whole inner peace bit. I think we conceive time as a sequence of events without really grasping this is actually the relationship we have with consciousness (intelligence). Intellicenge is not really the thoughts themselves, it is the potential for thought, which we experience as awareness. The remarkable aspect of that awareness is one can quieten all the thoughts and have a sensation of letting them drift off to the sides or leave them behind, which results in the experience of opening a huge expansion of soft velvety darkness. Awareness doesn't need a subject (thought) to be aware of. It is existant in the absence of thought. So... in that emptiness the mind is very clear, time and location are rather meaningless things in that it simply doesn't occur, for these are aspects of motion that aren't sensual in the stillness of thoughtless awareness. Maybe that is not science, and to be frank a thread of this nature surprises me in this forum, but the art of perception outweighs quantifiable measurements in a way like taking a swim offers more intimacy with water than the all the measurements applicable to H20. I recommend others practice meditation, because it is very relaxing, increases the ability of concentration and brings mood into contentment, not to mention the observation of ones own mind is far more intimate an understanding that the measurements made by ECG.

I just think of the energy (ie E=mc^2 energy) as primal intelligence, ie potential for thought. All observations are consciously observed thoughts whether they be physical or imaginary. If a thought has relevance, ie coheres to the relative structure of the universe, it is real, and if it doesn't it is imaginary. Real scenerios can be imagined, but not perfectly enough to be material.

I was just thinking that potential is 'the possibility of being'. The mere possibility is not an event, it's the potential for an event, so potential could be considered a state of non-existance (nil event). Actually it should be various possible states of non-existance. Universal existance is relative, so potential could be states which are possible, but can't be relatively discerned from eachother. So what potential is - is various states that are possible, but can't be discerned from a state of non-existance. Thats the foundation of it.

As relativity says about simultaneity: In the universe action and reaction are simultaneous, so simultaneity does exist in that way. I guess entanglement is simultaneous too. Interesting really. Potential is a strange concept too, it basically means 'could be' so I think various possible states would exist simultaneously and it 'could be' any and all of them. Various simultaneous possibilities - potential. It led me to think that potential has a relativity of its own and the various states could be described seperately, then said to exist simultaneously. I would be interested in any scientific data or speculative reflections on this if you please.

I'm aware of tests done on cancer cells with a gold nano particles. http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/6/1/2#IDAYBQ5M I know individuals who think that monatomic gold brings on an enlightened state and I find them a little nutty. Maybe just start a practice of daily meditation for that end. Here's Dave Hudson and his two bobs worth too. .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyAcgN_LBMQ&feature=related

The first 0D location is within infinite potential locations. A second location can't exist in the same place as the first, but it can't exist seperate from it either because each of the two points have equal relevance to eachother and distance is a relative value, not singular. I would like to say the two points are gravitionally packed and create no distance. A third point is also gravitationally packed forming a conceptual eq. triangle but there is no distance, because there is not a relative value, only a single one. The fourth point creates a conceptual tetrahedron and all values are still equal, not relative, so there is no relative space. Only an infinite potential for more zero dimensional locations. In relative terms there could be one, two, three or four 0D points, because there are no measurable values as all conceptual distances and angles are equal leaving no fractal values. The fifth point creates the first space because OD locations can't occupy the same place and it can't possibly be placed at the same distance. Now that two different distances and angles exist, we can say relativity exists and there is a minimal distance between points. That's my blurb about gravitationally packed 0D points. Thanks.

Thanks for the advise, and the Great article you wrote and linked.

The thing with travelling the speed of light is from the travellers perspective he would be at the departure point and destination simultaneously and if he is in two locations at the same time so too would he be everywhere at once.

I fail to see how there can be any kind of thing, real or imagined, unless there is an interaction between at least two elements eg space/point. Just thinking of a 1 dimensional space, Still it has two ends. Why is an empty set different to nothing? It seems something empty is always in relation to a set containing things. I'm just theorizing about the minimum number of componants required to create any object or emptyness. Any minimal formation or concept at all.

If there is a space how is it defined if there is no point to refer to?

I'm back for more speculation. I would like to construct an origin point A, but this can't be done unless there is prior space to place it in, so I'll call the space SP. Alternatively, I would like to construct a space, but this requires a focal point as reference. This means an empty space and a focal point are reliant and no construct can be made without dual elements. It can't be said that a space is prior to the origin or vice versa since these are simultaneously required. Having no prior or causal property there is no duration, hence an empty space is not actually requisite of time, or it could be said that there is one event so duration is exactly 'one moment'. Hence, by having no prior, one moment and no duration are equal quantities. I'll call the moment 0T Now the construct is established as a relationship between A, SP and 0T. Thus a minimum of three related componants are required for a minimal fundamental primary event.

Thanks - the site http://www.thesitewizard.com/archive/google.shtml is very easy to understand so it suits me. What do you think is the first foremost and most important thing to do?

Hi, Thanks. I read about things. I'm not sure if it helps much. Info is diverse and it's hard to set priorities. I moderate a 'spiritual forum'. What is the very first thing one should consider in improving search ranking?

Thank you both kindly, I'll read your offerings. Much appreciation, Throng. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt's pretty involved really isn't it. I found this site. Do you think the free tools are a good testing system. http://www.seomoz.org/tools I ran some tests on this page - hmmmm.

A constant is measured as itself. It has a single definition. Being singular is validation for a constant.

I recently started moderating a new discussion forum which covers spiritual subject matter. I would like the forum to appear on the top of the page when a user types 'Spiritual Forum' into Google search. I'd like to discuss the way this is achieved. I don't know the first thing about it at this stage. How does one ensure a successful and effective Google search in these circumstances?