forever

[O.L]

is there anything that will last forever?

perhaps....

eternity itself?

existence? will existence itself ever cease to exist?

a fact? can a fact last forever even if the universe in which it existed cease to exist?

[Epsilon=One]

is there anything that will last forever? ...will existence itself ever cease to exist?No thing that exists "will last forever." However, existence itself is endless.

can a fact last forever even if the universe in which it existed cease to exist?If "a fact" is something that exists, then, it is no different than anything else that exists.

[thejoshrules]

Matter can last forever, because matter can not be destroyed or created, it may be a bike or a dog, but they will rust or die as they get older, but the matter they were made of still exist.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Matter can last forever, because matter can not be destroyed or created, it may be a bike or a dog, but they will rust or die as they get older, but the matter they were made of still exist.

Matter is (simply) 'time' trapped energy, as ALL matter has decay rates, even protons are thought of as eventually decomposing, like in 10^46 Years...but, none the less, all matter is simply energy....only the infinite can/does 'last forever' and/or/but we can not know the entirety of the Infinite/Infinity.



Good questions BTW....

[Epsilon=One]

Matter can last forever, because matter can not be destroyed or created, it may be a bike or a dog, but they will rust or die as they get older, but the matter they were made of still exist.Matter cannot last forever. You are unconditionally wrong.

Matter particles (Resoloids (http://www.Resoloid.com)) become photons when ejected from their dual ellipsoidal "envelope" (quantum); photons are not considered as matter; and, photons endlessly dissipate.

Matter is continuously going in and out of existence. The components of sub-atomic particles are ephemeral.

[Epsilon=One]

Matter is (simply) 'time' trapped energy, as ALL matter has decay rates, even protons are thought of as eventually decomposing, like in 10^46 Years...but, none the less, all matter is simply energy....only the infinite can/does 'last forever' and/or/but we can not know the entirety of the Infinite/Infinity.You are perceptive concerning concepts of quantum chromodynamics (QCD); though as yet, only theory . . . but, observable theory (collider tracks, etc.). Time trapped energy is a good picturesque description. Not an entirely bad definition for matter/mass. Much better than: m = f/a.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Interesting, as it originates, in me, more from E = mc^2 then anywheres else, after all, the c^2 part ....well, c is roughly the only 'true' speed of time. (sorta)

[Epsilon=One]

....well, c is roughly the only 'true' speed of time. (sorta)Sure glad that you added "(sorta)."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Well (I) did that because its' speed has some relativities to it.....

...Plus....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) is there anything that will last forever? (SNoP)

Yes .....God!

But that is a Personally (Mine) held Belief .....and Opinion.

You can believe whatever you would like!

.....althought (I) would counsel, at the least/minimium, studying (Learning) About 'God' (The Truth)

[Epsilon=One]

Well (I) did that because its' speed has some relativities to it.....Yes. Including "time," which no one in academia can fundamentally define.

[Epsilon=One]

Yes .....God!You are correct. It's just that I differ with your definition of god.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Yes. Including "time," which no one in academia can fundamentally define.

So EP1 lets NOT quibble about simple truths, the idea of time that is being employed is the generally accepted one, even though it can be proven that there is no time if the idea of an infinite is accepted/acceptable, going backwards to the philosophical exstentialism that requisites the proving of existence to begin discourse does NOT serve either of us, or (especially) readers, coupled with the simplistic reality that, all any of us can do is make a subjective attestament (Express our own opinon) such that the usage of 'generalizations' and 'generally accepted (simple) truths' facillitates & expidites proper discourse...and is the foundation upon which all Science if founded....

So, (I) am not willing to start an arguement .....on the internet.

Followed by, the definition of belief that (I) linked in another thread tells of 'belief' being a state in which there has been NO Validation of what is being believed in...

As in, when given placebos, patients who Believe that they will get better, maintain a faith in that belief (Nothing has been proven to them yet) find their faith validated when they do get better, even though all they have taken is a SUGAR pill.

When you believe in something, it is not proven to you, when something is proven to you, you now have knowledge not belief.

(I) believe that is not how you follow that, as a matter of fact, Gods' Grace (I) KNOW THAT!

(P.S. (I) capitalized the two G's in Gods' Grace because (I) like to think they are indicative of something special ...not for you, & not for you to 'bow your head' to)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Yes. Including "time," which no one in academia can fundamentally define.Please, go read this post (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=3037#post3037) (in these forums)

[Epsilon=One]

So EP1 lets NOT quibble about simple truths, the idea of time that is being employed is the generally accepted one,...What are you talking about??? The term "simple truths" usually indicates something about as truthful as the salesman that uses "honest" like other men use the title "Mr."

You used "time" as it relates to relativity and the speed of light (SOL) . . . spacetime. This is the very fundamental time that is undefineable by academia. (They don't do very well with the other circularly defined dimensions either.) There is nothing "generally accepted" about it; except that academia doesn't know what it is.

So, (I) am not willing to start an arguement .....on the internet.Oh, if only this were true.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

What are you talking about??? The term "simple truths" usually indicates something about as truthful as the salesman that uses "honest" like other men use the title "Mr." No! More like Dishonest Men who Hide Behind AVATARS EP=1 ....nah, 'Simple truths' are what you claim (post #6) (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=627&page=1&pp=10&highlight=dark+energy) to have disdain towards persons who Obfuscate them, but herein You are the one doing it, How Logically Duplicite of you, Specious!

(I) used "Mr." Simply because (I) can Recognize how few people know me, thereby (in knowing me) being able to call me otherwise....

BTW Who the Heck are you? really, Who? What is your Real Name?

You used "time" as it relates to relativity and the speed of light (SOL) . . . spacetime. This is the very fundamental time that is undefineable by academia. (They don't do very well with the other circularly defined dimensions either.) There is nothing "generally accepted" about it; except that academia doesn't know what it is.WOW, your world, is it the same color as ours? Most people Accept current Notions about time, most of them don't know that there really isn't any, (time) The VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE "Generally accept" THAT .....notwithstanding Academias' reality issues....and certainly not withstanding your reality issues...

Oh, if only this were true.If only you could recognize that ...truth... 'O Dot-minded Blind (Metaphorically speaking) Man!

[Epsilon=One]

No! More like Dishonest Men who Hide Behind AVATARS EP=1Your ad hominem attacks are weak debate at best. Every ad hominem you inflict indicates that you have no argument concerning my original ideas about mathematics and fundamental concepts of physics.

....nah, 'Simple truths' are what you claim (post #6) (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=627&page=1&pp=10&highlight=dark+energy) to have disdain towards persons who Obfuscate them, but herein You are the one doing it, How Logically Duplicite of you, Specious!A careful reading of the context would indicate the connotation "fundamental" was intended in the first use. Obviously, it would have been better if I had used the word "fundamental." Thank you for the inordinate attention to what I write. Now, if you would only be as careful with your flagrant use of words.

(I) used "Mr." Simply because (I) can Recognize how few people know me, thereby (in knowing me) being able to call me otherwise....You are overly sensitive. If you would carefully read my statement regarding "Mr." it should be evident that there is no way to construe it as applying to you.

BTW Who the Heck are you? really, Who? What is your Real Name?Most all of the thoughtful, multiple contributors, concerned with evaluating new ideas on this forum are well aware of who I am.

It is not who I am that is of any importance; it is the merit of my original ideas that should be of concern. Why don't you spend some time discussing them rather than my character?

WOW, your world, is it the same color as ours?Hopefully, I see the world differently than you do.

Most people Accept current Notions about time, most of them don't know that there really isn't any, (time) The VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE "Generally accept" THAT .....Most people are wracked with debilitating doubt because it is difficult to "Accept current Notions" that are provided by the elite.

Not sure what you mean by "...there really isn't any, (time)"; because there surely is "time." "Time" is merely the counting of interruptions of any particular "clock." I was referring to the definition of physics' fundamental, intrinsic time (and its :clock") as not being definable by academia; not whether or not it existed.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Your ad hominem attacks are weak debate at best. Every ad hominem you inflict indicates that you have no argument concerning my original ideas about mathematics and fundamental concepts of physics. AHA! so that is why you keep using them, Thanks for letting me in on it!

A careful reading of the context would indicate the connotation "fundamental" was intended in the first use. Obviously, it would have been better if I had used the word "fundamental." Thank you for the inordinate attention to what I write. Now, if you would only be as careful with your flagrant use of words. First Obfuscation, then self flattery followed by reversal to attack position

You are overly sensitive. If you would carefully read my statement regarding "Mr." it should be evident that there is no way to construe it as applying to you. That your trying to tell to MR Robin Parsons?? Go sell your 'Bridge' to someone who is Idiotic enough to believe you.


Most all of the thoughtful, multiple contributors, concerned with evaluating new ideas on this forum are well aware of who I am. So your hiding behind their skirts too?

It is not who I am that is of any importance; it is the merit of my original ideas that should be of concern. Why don't you spend some time discussing them rather than my character? C-a-n-t f-i-n-d a-n-y.....

Hopefully, I see the world differently than you do. No doubt...

Most people are wracked with debilitating doubt because it is difficult to "Accept current Notions" that are provided by the elite. Maybe .....in Politics

Not sure what you mean by "...there really isn't any, (time)"; because there surely is "time." "Time" is merely the counting of interruptions of any particular "clock." I was referring to the definition of physics' fundamental, intrinsic time (and its :clock") as not being definable by academia; not whether or not it existed.In an Infinite/Infinity there CAN be NO time....

[Epsilon=One]

C-a-n-t f-i-n-d a-n-y.....Ther are well over 50 just in the "Proof of One" Manuscript.

How 'bout focusing just on these three: The Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC), Emergent Ellipsoids (http://www.EmergentEllipsoid.com), and the revised Fibonacci sequence (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/rFS).

In an Infinite/Infinity there CAN be NO time....Infinite is a mathematical term so it doesn't really have any reference to time. Though when you use the uppercase "I," I'm not certain what you precisely mean. When you use formatting for emphasis, please indicate your meaning. It is difficult to follow/separate your free-wheeling emotions from your logic.

You are correct concerning Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

[thejoshrules]

wow you guys, lol, dang, i mean really..., fighting over the forums, i don't care you started, it but first it was a friendly debate, now this... you guys are throwing darts at each other. And i dont think you should get on about the Mr. part, he just put it in to get an understanding of his name, not to be critisized, for all we know he could be a professer or somthing, who knows but o well.

im not tring to defend either one of you, but i think it is sorta getting a little crazy.

I don't want to get into this, but you guys need to stop breath, and realize how you guys are acting.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) I don't want to get into this, but you guys need to stop breath, and realize how you guys are acting. (SNoP)Thanks! excellant advise...

The rest is just Two Older 'intellects' discussing, science (sorta) with one being Veeery revealing of their "Character"/"Characteristics"

:cool: O.K.?

Asides from that, look at all of what well, Entertains(?) you.

[golran]

forever ……a beautiful word..‎

I read the replies and I think there is difference in the concept of ‎existence..‎
what it means , where it begins and end…‎
is it the visual space ?‎
or the hole universe?‎
ok…doesn’t matter….‎
we (think) that the existence wont last forever…if we mean the visual ‎universe(matter) , we are right because it transfer to radiation ‎‎….otherwise I think we r rong ….beacuse all the visual univ. is a basket ‎of photons in the end which last forever!...can any proof that..!‎
facts last forever even if the existence end. fact is fact …it cant be fact ‎then false!...‎

where it(radiation) came from? ,where it going to? ….that is a real big ‎question!. but not in this thread , it need a separate one..‎
‎ thank u

[Epsilon=One]

(SNIP) is there anything that will last forever? (SNoP)Yes .....God!

But that is a Personally (Mine) held Belief .....and Opinion.

You can believe whatever you would like!

.....althought (I) would counsel, at the least/minimium, studying (Learning) About 'God' (The Truth)I have studied extensively concerning god.

I have concluded that god is without anthropoidal qualities.

And, I agree with Mr. Robin Parsons; god does "last forever."

[Epsilon=One]

forever ……a beautiful word..‎Yes! It is equivalent to the singularity . . . god . . . Oneness . . . Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I).

...I think there is difference in the concept of ‎existence..‎
what it means , where it begins and end…‎Existence is a limit that begins and ends with motion at infinitesimal speed and infinite speed; at the locus of the duality of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I).

where it(radiation) came from? ,where it going to?Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.