throng

Hello, A single definition. You are ... eloquent. I read what you said and I feel I am understood. It is very rare and I appreciate it.

A constant is a singular value. A constant is only measurable as itself. If it varies it is still itself. I think c is easiest, There is only one c. It is not a relative speed.

I can't study the math or science I think about. I already have preoccupation, and it simply is not taught. I will attempt a mathematical formulation. Nothing and singularity can't be expressed as there is no relative by which description can be made, so we start with two exact same objects. O1 = O2. By so saying there is no determination which is which, yet there must be a factor seperating these which I will call D. D is singular and not fractal as it can't be defined by O1 or O2. So D=D is all that can be said. Now there are O1 and O2 which are defined by relationship with D. O1 <D> O2. We could call D=1 but there is no validation - it is constant or self measuring. Please do not dismiss me for my lack of education. Simply imagine a motive relationship between two geometric points. There is only 'toward' or 'away' and without a third point by which fractal degrees can be ascertained this 'speed' is only measurable as itself. There is therefore only one 'speed' and no relative. This is another way of expressing a space constant as there is but one seperation factor for the two existant objects of relativity.

In referance to c: All motive matter is consistant to this value. c itself is not a speed but a singular relative to all motion. As distance is contracted to nil at c, all massless things are everywhere in terms of probability and simultaneously existant at an object of mass. The electron for example is located uncertainly in quite similar fashion, and as probability would dictate a photon simply can not miss its inevitable point of arrival, as from the perspective of the photon all existance is a point, because as distance is contracted to nil so too must the photon be in all places at once. In this way, as a primary fundamental, all things are everywhere and also at some place. Thus c is constant with respect to massive motion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hello again. Always a great pleasure. I understand that constants are measured relative to apparent form thus pi is consistant to any circle. Hypothetically speaking, say pi was variant and not constant, then circles would not be consistant either, but still cohere to pi's shifting value. As a ratio pi dictates a constant relationship defining circular form. So, the relationship between circles and pi is constant. If pi changed circles would retain the exact same ratio, though the values need not be constant. In short, the relationship is constant, so there is no apparent change, where in fact pi could be varient and only relatively constant. It is pretty pseudo, I have to admit, and in terms of speculation, wild.

This is quite interesting, I can't quite grasp the concept. In fact I can not even begin to grapple with any form (even complete emptiness) without some comparitive relative. I'll have to try, as I see it. Though I really have no knowledge, and no idea why I obsess on the thing. I guess it is exploring the philosophy of duality without the guru light element. If I express singularity I can just say S, however there is no relative to make equasion with. If S has no relative it is as useful as 'nothing', useless actually. Therefore an empty set of any kind (S) uses nothing as an imaginary comparitive. How can any space exist without at least a dual relationship? I think I must've missed something you said. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hello again, There might be some who feel that the vast volumes of mathematical learning have great relevance, but I see each small part is consistant of the whole in a way similar to an ocean is consistant of trillions of water droplets. I appreciate your sincerity in previous postings, for the stale one's mock and query the very value of exploratory thinking, where I might know very little of science and math my mind is alive with wondering. As stupid as I might seem to be to the learned, I can plainly see that physics has reached the place where protons are crashed together near enough to light speed in mere hope that something might reveal itself. In this way the nature of dimension itself requires completely new definition as a value of perception, for rigid precepts previously made give no direction to the field of experimentation. As well as that, just see the forms of architecture and the chaotic network of roads etc etc etc, which have no asthetic value, being slaphazardly placed according to the whims of corporate attainment, as the world falls into warfare, religious extremity and ecological collapse. What good has come from stale learnings that propel the Earth to these ends? That is the point, the addition and the constructive purpose I persue, though I feel helpless. Thus I appreciate your contributions and not those of whom ridicule, and hope we might continue discussion with all purity of intention.

If you have a dual relationship they are either complete opposites (off/on) or exactly the same on/on. I think on/on is realistic because then relationship could be on/off (opposites), both on (the same) , both off (nothing) or off/on. Hence probability. If it was off or on then it is just saying is/isn't. These bear no relation to eachother and describe no possibility.

I just think c is constant in relation to movement and if c varies motion varies in proportion, so we don't notice possible variation because it is measured as constantly relative to motion. Now pi is constant to circles, if pi varies circles may not be circles, but because pi is constantly relative we observe the same value perceptively.

It is new therefore it is 'added'. If indeed there is a value of definition constant to any space, we need no inert location and geometric relationship starts prior to assertion of inertia. Relevent? I think so. Some say observation is intergral to quantum behaviour so new geometric models entailing an observer's perception could well be relevent. I think so. Not everything has been thought of and there is always a new idea. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Lets just say a space requires a point and a point requires a space. I really want to include the observer, and speculate his 'experience' of change and time etc. First I will try to explain why two points do not discern a distance. If the observer was on a point A and was to travel to point B this would be his apparency: While on point A he would observe one point B. The moment he left point A both points would be observed but there's no perceivable change until arrival at point B, which is identical to his origional observation. Thus, No time expires (no change) then it's the same again. So no velocity, distance or time are perceivable to the 'intergrated' observer. In this model, we have an overall awareness of the relative observer's experience within a geometric system. Distance is relative and not singular.

It is a value derived from the relationship required for existant empty space. It is a way of defining two spacial properties by removing change. A value free from change - It's just ... new. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok, we have the point. It has no location so can be condidered to be 'anywhere'. (point A) We have a space which is 'everywhere'. (point E) These are reduced to two possibilities, inevitibilities rather. Ok - A and E are the simultaneous states, the only two, for no change is apparent. The value (V) is the seperation of A and E. And that seperation is the same for any empty space. So A and E are reliant, or simultaneuosly required. It's the same for any space: constant. Only two possibilities: finite. It is like Heads and Tails, a coin is required. We don't regard the monetary value, because any coin has this quality. We could say coin = 1 or V = 1.

If there is no point of reference then space is not apparent. Hence point and space are dependant relatives. Any portion of a space still requires a point of reference. Point and space are entirely co-dependant. Any space has (and must have) this dual relationship. Point is one state and space is the other. A value seperates the states. There are two states. The value is singular and defines 'two'. It is finite. The value is only discernable as itself so is constant (effectively). So what? I derive a space constant from emptiness... has that ever been done before? If emptiness is given a finite value... well that's quite relevent isn't it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I hope the above clarifies some questions, I think there is substantial reasoning there and if a defined value can be got from empty space then - hey, something new. Ever considered c as prior to motion? A fundamental primary? You wouldn't believe the trouble I have had explaining that four locations are required for 3D spacial volume. So simple! In this case space is four points infinitely spaced (but infinity makes no discernable shape so I didn't need that.) However if you prefer, the point I refer to is a point related to four infinitely spaced points, but it is more complex that way, though still, it would justify my position above.

A space can't exist without a point for comparison. The relationship is point to space. The value of seperation defines 'Two' states, exactly two. It is definite. The value is only discernable as itself. It is constant. Empty space provides a constant definite value. I see this as reasonable and can't find a flaw.

Yes it is supposition, yet any space is infinite in relative proportion to a point. First a space is proportionately infinite to the point required as spacial justification. Space can't exist without a reference point for comparison and the proportional relationship is identical in any space. So there is no space without an infinitismal relative. The relationship is requisite. There are only two states. A unit seperates and defines 'TWO' as the exact quantity. (like distance is a unit defining exactly two points.) The value is definite. No other relative is possible so the value is constant. The value is not quantifiable - but it is definite and constant. I hope you see the point, it is undefiable and space itself defines a definite constant.

Yes - an infinite proportion necessitates a fractal measure be an infinitismal ratio. Assertion, yes apparently based. The assertion of space is entirely reliant on the comparison, so the relative portions can only be simultaneous, and can only be one ratio. Infinitismal. All or nothing as it were. We can say by this fundamental that two states of space are possible, two 'places'. Therefore a definite constant value is fundamental to space, because the only possibilities are reliant. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWe have infinite space and any part is proportionately infinitismal, therefore two possible states exist as relatives. The states define eachother and are co-dependent. In this way space is two simultaneous places. 'Two' is the only possibile, by relative proportion, hence a constant value. They are completely inter-reliant, hence the value is finite. Hope that's understandable.

In terms of perspective there past in the distance, but in terms of perception events are simultaneous, as light is the information perceived. If a star exploded and one observer was one million light years and the other two million light years away, by perspective they'd observe one million years apart, but by perception, simultaneouslt. There's like a relation between perspective and perception that stretches time, because that measured in this moment is infinitely relative, and justified by infinite comparison. The ends are the same, so the middle has to fit.

I was trying to flick your avatar.

Oh the relevence of relativity. If we have an infinite space any portion would be infinitesmal by proportion. We have an infinite space and a proportionate point. If there were no point no space could 'arise' and without space there is no point, so these are simultaneous. The space is everywhere and the point is anywhere, but it does exist as fundamentally relative. Only anywhere and everywhere are possible for no relative portion exists, and this can be seen as two 'places' without a possible variant. So, there is a constant finite because the 'places' are reliant. Thus the assertion of space derives a finite value. Thank you, I hope you 'see the point.' Hehehehehe.

I think if we think of inevitability as 'it could be' we have possibility as a root cause, but before possibility is where it's really at, impossibility. If we prior possibility... there is no potential. And then, in terms of absolutes, if only the truth existed as a singular fundamental of reality, it would have no definition, having no comparitive. In all, If there is an infinite field of possibility, impossible is inevitable too, thus an infinite possibility is impossible, unless they are the same, which they are, being absolutes. I think it pertains to how when perspective sees past in the distance, perception is simultaneous regardless of proximity to an event, as light is constant as energy conveyance. Now it could be nothing, it could be a single thing, there's no relative difference. It could be two things the same, there's no difference between them. They are like one, which is uncomparitive like nothing. So there's like this primal value where perception can't distinguish, because no comparitive seperation is possible and there's a big 'could be this that or the other two'. This/that are absolute opposites and the other two are the same, which is no different to this or that. Just a conceptual observation.

You see the simultanety of collapse/observation negates the meaning of consequence, hence observation is not removed from the wave function, but merely a collapse of it, so there is not a seperate entity. I don't see how that makes 'causal' a reasonable precept.

Which I think pertains to a fundamental finite value. Whether we call it m/s or another thing. How pertinant is a finite constant as a primary fundamental? It seem geometric relationship is reliant on a primary finite measure.

I think it is. I guess the wave function is considered the primary presence. If a collapse occurs an obsevation ensues. Did the collapse cause observation or did observation cause collapse? It depends, neither the collapse or observation exist as primary, and as consequence are simultaneous, so one could be the other by eachother's names. Wouldn't we just say observation is the definition of collapse and not a seperate thing?

Well pi is a great constant, because it is true of any circle. Even as all other parameters change pi retains its value. Is that what validates a constant, a single finite value? In the case of c or pi, in relation to motion or circles, there is a single finite value. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged To say it 'approaches' all objects at the same speed would usually entail departing another at the negative proportion so it might be assigned a speed, but actually it is singularily relative to motion.

We speculate that observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction, but there are two primarys, wave function and observer, and one effect, collapse. One might say there are three functional elements, wave, observation and collapse, but actually only the collapse itself lends any apparancy at all. Observation causes collapse? Collapse is observation? Collapse validates both wave function and observation? I think it is hard to discern the causal principle in this relationship.

Of all constants c is most famous. We call it speed and measure it that, but always the same speed? It's a different kind of speed for only one quantity exists, with no relative for comparison. As I see it, a constant is defined as a value which has no relative by which discernment can be made, so it is finite and has a 'value', but it's nature bears no definition (it's not really a speed), for there is no other value, only d=d, Hence now we say E=m so m=E, what disparity is there? m=E=m and who cares which or both it's the same thing dang it! And it is pertinant to c, for by contraction one location is much the same as another, so if it takes zero time to traverce one distance, too must it be in all places. So, it really is quite fundamental as to what a constant really entails, what do you think?

No one does it I hope, really I'm just being inflamatory - sorry. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am inventing a model using 0D points as representation, all modern geometry can only verify my model because it is mathematically cohesive. I wan't to keep it very simple and since we last spoke I explored all nature of things to find an expression and dicussed alot seeking communicative medium. Exactly my intention. In fact the space is consequential to locations and not prior to them. In my expression space is entirely dependant on the points given, not prior, not seperate, but relative. I relish the opportunity to share details. The main problem with expressing origin is we use a blank page to represent space in which the origin point can exist. We end up having two values, 'space' and 'origin' (or nothing/something or is/isn't). When the second point is drawn a distance is only apparent because space or 'blank page' was preordained. I draw the second point but ignore the prior space or blank page, because the relationship between two points does not define a location and the distance is really just a singular value with no relative, because distance can't measure a point and a point can't measure distance. Surely two points only express a single value. The possibility is either point (which are the same) or both points (the same). I liken it to a two headed coin either side is heads and both sides are heads and the only possibility is heads. "Heads" is the singular value using that metaphor. In the classic system, 'space' or 'origin' represent two distinct possibilities, so is not expressive of singularity, duality in fact. My model uses two points but expresses a singular value. Hopefully this is conceptually coherant to modern geometry. Thanks, I'll answer or discuss, and hope interest is enough for continuation.

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it. If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space. Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'. I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications. I invented a model which is geometrically congruent to relativity but it goes against what is taught in geometry, and the more set one becomes in academia the more resistant he might be to models that defy current definitions, but if it is cohesive I see no reason to debunk it, try if you like but I worked it out and I'd prefer open enquiry, and I can clarify any query or accept different perspectives. I hope someone would like to discuss space being consequential to, and not prior to 'existance' or origin.