New perspectives on Relativity

[Upchurch]

Really? No wonder you can't prove it exists.

I never said absolute spacetime exists. Only spacetime.

Well then, is there a real manifold curved in 4 dimensions between real objects, or not?
Since Einstein says "no", I'm expecting the same answer from yourself.

What is your source? Einstien did say there was a real spacetime manifold between real objects. That's what his General Theory of Relativity describes. That last sentince is completely false. (well, about Einstien. I'm sure you do expect me to believe your falsehoods)

You don't seem to have latched on.
The issue is whether there's absolute spacetime between definite/real things. Einstein says no, there isn't - that in effect 6 billion people could, theoretically, see the same event differently - especially if they're all moving whilst they observe that effect.
So, what he means is that there's no definite/real value for the spacetime that exists between any two objects or for any specific event.

This statement is in direct contradiction with Relativity as described by Einstein. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. If you are going to try to argue this angle, you should at least learn the jargon.

So, it is true to say that absolute spacetime is equivalent to real/definite spacetime.

Listen very closely: "absolute" does not mean the same thing as "real" when refering to spacetime and Relativity. I'm not saying this because I disagree with your position. I'm saying this because I have studied this stuff and from that I understand the jargon that the sources you referenced are using. I'm telling you that you are using it incorrectly and you can easily confirm this by reading more about the subject.

 

[lifegazer]

I never said absolute spacetime exists. Only spacetime.

You know that real spacetime exists?
Come on matey, we both know that's rubbish. The only provable reality is that which is whatever it is that you are, since that ~thing~ is the experiencer of all things relative and illusory.

The only spacetime you know about is the relative spacetime within awareness - the variant kind.

What is your source? Einstien did say there was a real spacetime manifold between real objects. That's what his General Theory of Relativity describes. That last sentince is completely false. (well, about Einstien. I'm sure you do expect me to believe your falsehoods)

I've given you three sources which state that there is no absolute spacetime. In fact, aside from the constancy of lightspeed, this is the most widely-known fact about Relativity.

Now, since you defined spacetime as the manifold-thingy, then absolute spacetime = real manifold-thingy.
Therefore, if there is no absolute spacetime, there is no real manifold-thingy.

This statement is in direct contradiction with Relativity as described by Einstein. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. If you are going to try to argue this angle, you should at least learn the jargon.

That's not a rational retort or an explanation.
I know for a fact that if 6 billion people all have a different velocity that not a single one of them will have the exact same experience of an event. Multiply the twins in the twin-paradox by 6 billion and you'll get my drift.
So, for any event or for any separation of events/bodies, there is no definite/true/real value of spacetime with regards that event(s) or bodies.

Listen very closely: "absolute" does not mean the same thing as "real" when refering to spacetime and Relativity. I'm not saying this because I disagree with your position. I'm saying this because I have studied this stuff and from that I understand the jargon that the sources you referenced are using.

That's funny. In your previous post, you told everyone that

"I (upchurch) have no idea what absolute spacetime is."

Yet here you are telling everyone that absolute does not mean real or definite.

You've been rumbled squire.

 

[RussDill]

http://improbable.org/era/physics/relativity.html

"Einstein published a paper on the Special Theory of Relativity to expose the fundamental error of classical physics: absolute spacetime."

Wow, you found some random website of some random guy who used the phrase "absolute spacetime" incorrectly. Since he is pointing to einstein's work, if true, you should be able to find that reference in einstein's work. Present it.

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html

"Is there anything absolute (universal)? It seems as if we've gotten rid of everything that has to do with universal notions of time and universal notions of space. Our spacetime model can no longer have these once-universally accepted lines and planes. What The Principle of Relativity has done is to make the Light Cone absolute.

It is fair to say that what Einstein did is that he replaced the absoluteness of time and of space with the absoluteness of light. Light is more fundamental than time and space."

Um, no, sorry. minkowski space and lightcones deal with lines drawn though spacetime. What the article is saying is that the lines drawn through spacetime are absolute.

Interesting last sentence... since in my opinion, the sensation of light is the effect which gives rise to the illusion of space and things.

Lifegazer, Helen Keller, Helen Keller, lifegazer.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html

"Statement: "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity".

Physically, this means that there is no absolute spacetime, no absolute frame of reference with respect to which position and velocity are defined. Only relative positions and velocities between objects are meaningful."

Where does the above quote address absolute spacetime? It merely addresses how space and time seperate from eachother differ from reference frame to reference frame.

When we define a reference frame, we are defining it in concepts of seperate space and time. Why? Because this is the way our brains work, and it's easier to do the math.

You can do all the math in spacetime if you want, and not worry about seperate reference frames, but this is very complex, and it would take you decades to complete some problems.

 

[RussDill]

Not quite clueless then.
Well then, is there a real manifold curved in 4 dimensions between real objects, or not?
Since Einstein says "no", I'm expecting the same answer from yourself.

Einstein's crowning acheivement was to show that a manifold curved in 4 dimensions is what seperates objects and events. He showed that it is not a seperate 3 dimensional space and time that seperate objects and events. Have you ever even read einstein's papers?

You don't seem to have latched on.
The issue is whether there's absolute spacetime between definite/real things. Einstein says no, there isn't - that in effect 6 billion people could, theoretically, see the same event differently - especially if they're all moving whilst they observe that effect.

From this statement, it apears you don't even grasp galilean relativity. What is the difference between a group of people that moves, and a group of people that do not move?

We already all observe all events differently. IE, if something is further away, it is dimmer, and smaller. The observations of time dialation, etc, are no different, you just need to realize that we are existing in a spacetime.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I remember trying to use the analogy of the computer-game to explain my meaning. Not a perfect analogy, but it explains my point of view:-
Whenever you start a new game like medal-of-honor or tomb-raider or whatever, there's a surprise waiting for you around every building or bush. The fact is though that the surprise won't exist (within you awareness, on the screen) until you turn that corner or pass that bush. Until that moment, the surprise is just stored information.

I have not seen that discussion, it is an interesting argument, no doubt. But I wonder if it could be taken as a "proof" that we live in such a universe. Its like The Matrix or the Descartes demon, it cant be proved as being wrong, but that doesnt make it real. Does it? Its a model (like the one we normally use), why would you take it as better to explain the world?

 

[RussDill]

You know that real spacetime exists?

I'm sorry, none of us can prove whether or not what we perceive exists, or does not exist.

Come on matey, we both know that's rubbish. The only provable reality is that which is whatever it is that you are, since that ~thing~ is the experiencer of all things relative and illusory.

Just because you have "I think, therefore I am" doesn't mean that everything else doesn't exist. That isn't how a proof works.

The only spacetime you know about is the relative spacetime within awareness - the variant kind.

Again, spacetime isn't relative, space and time are.

I've given you three sources which state that there is no absolute spacetime. In fact, aside from the constancy of lightspeed, this is the most widely-known fact about Relativity.

No, the fact that space and time are not absolute is one of the most widely know facts about relativity. I've pointed out how you have misintrepreted your sources.

Now, since you defined spacetime as the manifold-thingy, then absolute spacetime = real manifold-thingy.
Therefore, if there is no absolute spacetime, there is no real manifold-thingy.

Again, spacetime is not relative, different observers do not experience spacetime differently.

That's not a rational retort or an explanation.
I know for a fact that if 6 billion people all have a different velocity that not a single one of them will have the exact same experience of an event. Multiply the twins in the twin-paradox by 6 billion and you'll get my drift.

Again, no different than two people in a room observing a different side of a statue. I'm not sure what two different people seeing things from two different perspectives says about your philosophy.

So, for any event or for any separation of events/bodies, there is no definite/true/real value of spacetime with regards that event(s) or bodies.

No, spacetime is not relative, and it is not experienced differently by different bodies. That is the whole point of spacetime.

"I (upchurch) have no idea what absolute spacetime is."

That's because you haven't clearly defined what the hell it is that you mean. I assume that by saying that there is no absolute spacetime, that spacetime is relative based on reference frame, which is untrue.

 

[RussDill]

I remember trying to use the analogy of the computer-game to explain my meaning. Not a perfect analogy, but it explains my point of view:-

Whenever you start a new game like medal-of-honor or tomb-raider or whatever, there's a surprise waiting for you around every building or bush. The fact is though that the surprise won't exist (within you awareness, on the screen) until you turn that corner or pass that bush. Until that moment, the surprise is just stored information.

Ah, but the information exists outside of your awareness in the computer game example.

 

[P.S.A.]

So basically, Lifegazer states he is God. And that I am God. Everything is God. Which means Everything must always remain God, otherwise God decreases in experience. I AM GOD FOREVER! WOO HOO!

You see Lifegazer, your "philosophy" can come to no conclusion other than God is a git. If God includes me, he's a git. If God is ONLY YOU here on Earth... he's still a git It's your "philosophy" mate, don't blame me if it only leads to gittery.

As for your comments upon what the authors of those webpages are actually saying about SpaceTime... have you emailed any of them yet?

Look baa baa lack-wit, there remains a simple proof of who understands those pages better, and no matter how much you obsfucate, and try and claim Upchurch et all are misunderstanding the quotes, and you have the correct interpretation, that proof remains; If your interpretation of SpaceTime actually did match the authors usage of them, YOU WOULD BE THE ESTABLISHMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. You aren't. They don't agree with you. Which is why you will never, ever contact them and put the question as to who understands what they are saying better to the authors... You know who they'll agree with. We know it too. THE END.

Oh, and one last point; do you know why I didn't respect your plea to take this to another thread? Because I recognise when someone is desperately trying to change the subject from one he knows he's been beaten on. "Please, pleeeaassee, I know I've been unworthy of respect, and my "philosophy" has more holes in it than a weightwatchers swiss cheese, but pleaaassee pretend I'm smart for a while... just long enough so I can salvage some self respect, pleeeassseee?". Sorry, but no. Bed. Made. Lie in.

 

[Z]

And, for the Nth time, "absolute" does not equal "real" and "universal" does not mean "in the universe"/

Dictionary, moron. Get one.

 

[lifegazer]

I have not seen that discussion, it is an interesting argument, no doubt. But I wonder if it could be taken as a "proof" that we live in such a universe. Its like The Matrix or the Descartes demon, it cant be proved as being wrong, but that doesnt make it real. Does it? Its a model (like the one we normally use), why would you take it as better to explain the world?

It wasn't a proof. It was an analogy to show Paharansi that the new discovery of stars isn't a proof of a real world.

My exclusion of the real world - apart from the efforts in this thread - comes after the realisation that existence is non-spatial and boundless. But that's another discussion too. And alot of bickering.

 

[RussDill]

It wasn't a proof. It was an analogy to show Paharansi that the new discovery of stars isn't a proof of a real world.

My exclusion of the real world - apart from the efforts in this thread - comes after the realisation that existence is non-spatial and boundless. But that's another discussion too. And alot of bickering.

The emergent property of conciousness does not have length, width, or height, so what?

 

[Atlas]

Einstein showed that time & space (spacetime for Russ) are relative. He showed that there is no such thing as absolute space or absolute time (or spacetime). Or, as upchurch called it, there's "No universal spacetime.". In other words, space and time are things that only have meaning from the perspective of the individual's inner-awareness of them.

I would say that space and time have subjective meaning. You seem to confuse meaning and existence here. There is nothing about the universe that Einstein thought required human awareness to exist. Nevertheless, within human awareness the meanings we associate with the reality of the universe could be made richer and truer.

You don't appear to have listened to what I had to say: without the existence of absolute/universal time, there cannot be an "out there"... there cannot be a real universe.
What that boils down to, is that only the observer exists - and only one at that - for just as an external universe full of separate bodies is dependent upon the existence of absolute space-time, so then is the existence of separate observers.

You have done too much boiling here and are not letting us the how your thoughts heat up to that boiling point.

It's been pointed out that there exists no absolute shoe size but shoes still exist. Am I mistaken, in your philosophy are there also no shoes? Is it because there is no absolute shoe size that we know shoes do not exist?

Originally posted by lifegazer You need to open your mind to both possibilities squire. It is not enough to assert that only one possibility exists.

Although you offered this to Pahansiri I was wondering if you would consider taking it yourself.

The links you provide do mention absolutes in terms of light. But you have disagreed with the speed of light as an absolute. You misrepresent Einsteinian concepts of spacetime but accept him as your expert. If it's all false why refer to the authority of it. You do the same with QM. You simultaneously accept it and reject it saying it proves what it doesn't even address.

I'd still like to understand where this lack of absolutes goes... I asked it before.
How does the lack of absolutes in the illusion of the Absolute prove the existence of the Absolute.

 

[lifegazer]

You see Lifegazer, your "philosophy" can come to no conclusion other than God is a git. If God includes me, he's a git. If God is ONLY YOU here on Earth... he's still a git It's your "philosophy" mate, don't blame me if it only leads to gittery.

Once upon a time there was a git... and then he decided he would be a git no more.

The moral of the 'story'? None of us are slaves to "gittery". And, we can be like whatever we choose to be like.

You know what distinguishes a serf from a God? Choice.

Now, why don't you be a good boy and stop spoiling this intelligent discussion? There's absolutely no reason why you can't start your own thread and crack jokes about me and slander me till... well, until hell opens up for you. Just do it in another thread.
Like I said, it will make for good group therapy. Help to bolster the flagging confidence in the reality of humanity.

Now, giving you free license to slander and mock me elsewhere is a pretty good deal, I think. You get to have your laffs with your mates and I get to have sensible discussions.

Now, if you don't accept this deal and continue to abuse me and wreck my threads at the same time, I'm going to make a formal complaint to the JREF establishment. Why? Simply because I'm tired of idiots wrecking profound discussion with infantile retorts.
Like I said, I don't give a hoot what you think about me, but I care deeply about my philosophy and have the right to air that philosophy to anyone who wants to listen to it. When you abuse my freedom to do this, you abuse the freedom of interested parties also by disjointing the thread. In fact, that's the very reason you are doing it. And whether you like it or not, my threads generate alot of serious interest.

This is the one and only time I will warn you. If your behaviour persists, I will act. Now, either grow up and have sensible discussions with the rest of us or go and play with the other kiddies in the back garden.
Ta ta.

 

[lifegazer]

Atlas, I'll answer you tomorrow. I'm off to visit another realm of consciousness.

 

[RussDill]

This is the one and only time I will warn you. If your behaviour persists, I will act. Now, either grow up and have sensible discussions with the rest of us or go and play with the other kiddies in the back garden.
Ta ta.

Oh, really? By all means then, persist, we are all eagerly waiting for your actions. Will you shoot firebolts from your eyes?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

It wasn't a proof. It was an analogy to show Paharansi that the new discovery of stars isn't a proof of a real world.

In any case, I like the computer game - real world analogy, in fact Im working on some paper that uses it to discuss perception and conceptual evaluations of it. But one thing does not lead to the other. That the perceptual world is all what we have does not make the objective world absurd or nor existent.

 

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You need to open your mind to both possibilities squire. It is not enough to assert that only one possibility exists.

My friend as I have shown my mind is wide open, I as to the God idea have always stated the same, first and foremost it is irrelevant. If there is a God or 10 or a billion has no relevancy as to anything really but greatly so to ones actions. If one seeks to do what is good and right to cause no harm to self or any other for any reason but that it is good and right then it is not moral.

If done to please a god it is not moral
Out of fear of a god, it is not moral.
Out of respect of a god and not the being who you seek not to harm, it is not moral.
If done for a reward from a god etc it is not moral.

After that comes the fact I see no evidence of a god and see clearly such a belief is based in fear and ignorance.

But may there be a god or 2 or a billion, there very well may be. I do not fear being wrong I am not set in a belief to where if the facts come to light to prove my position/belief wrong I will not change.

My beliefs are free from ego, desires or emotional grasping. Truth is truth and as I have offered over and over, prove what you claim to be true and I will believe it.

Remember you have made statements of fact and by such we will test them, that fact that such bothers you only demonstrates my friend that your mind is closed, you fear and grasp to what you want to be true not to truth.

Time for me to again move along so be well.

P.S. By the way, while I do not expect you to answer my question of above that being
“Silliness and rudeness noted, please show me ONE thing that is in and of itself completely self, something not comprised of billions of not self elements and other life forms ( as your body is). Show me a person who is not as to thoughts etc effected by mother, father, teachers and events.

Show me one thing that is just self.”

But if you do find something that is in and of itself , self or if you decide to perform the miracles you say you can please do drop me a note at mbertran@nycap.rr.com

May you and all be well and happy.

 

[P.S.A.]

Once upon a time there was a git... and then he decided he would be a git no more.

(Edited to close this quote tag... Damn you quote tag, you GIT!)

And thus God became dead to gittery. He was no longer omnicogniscant, for he knew not how to be a git. God was diminished, decreased in power, less than he once was...

You really do walk into these things, don't you? You'd think someone so wise would know how to avoid making himself look like a kipper...

The moral of the 'story'? None of us are slaves to "gittery". And, we can be like whatever we choose to be like.

And "I" chose to be a git. And your problem with this is?

You know what distinguishes a serf from a God? Choice.

No, actually I believe you'll find it's God's choice before the dream began as to whether I'm serf or God. At least, that's what you once claimed. So there are no Serfs, only God thinking he's a serf.

Now, why don't you be a good boy and stop spoiling this intelligent discussion?

*looks around*

I'm sorry, did you say there was intelligent discussion here? I can see intelligent posters, there's Upchurch and Hethhethit'scoldonhoth, and quite a few others who hold all kinds of beliefs, but intelligent ones. But this is a lifegazer thread, so it's not really a debate at all... more sort of bemused tolerance of a lecturing, ranting, hypocritical plonker. Just the sort of thread I ONLY appear in, in fact! If it was intelligent debate, I wouldn't be here.

There's absolutely no reason why you can't start your own thread and crack jokes about me and slander me till... well, until hell opens up for you. Just do it in another thread.

There's even less reason why I can't do both... thus lessening at twice the rate my own sufferings in hell! Hurrah! In fact, maybe I should open a third and fourth thread to laugh at you...?

Like I said, it will make for good group therapy. Help to bolster the flagging confidence in the reality of humanity.

But Lifegazer dearest, if I do that, God dies... you aren't lying are you? And there was me thinking God didn't tell porkies when he became all heavenly!

Now, giving you free license to slander and mock me elsewhere is a pretty good deal, I think. You get to have your laffs with your mates and I get to have sensible discussions.

Ahh, but I am no petty little human being... I am GOD, and GOD doesn't settle for little deals. I am a vengeful GOD, a destructive GOD, an evil GOD. I neither ask nor need your permission to do anything, for I am GOD, and I am omnipotent. And GOD chooses to destroy your thread. LOVE YOUR GOD AS HE DOES SO.

Now, if you don't accept this deal and continue to abuse me and wreck my threads at the same time, I'm going to make a formal complaint to the JREF establishment.

But... but... but yesterday the JREF establishment hated you! And the Mods were deliberately deleting your threads because they contained such awesome wisdom! Surely they won't side with you against me today?!

Personally, I don't care if they do. Their boards, their rules. I break 'em, I buy it. Only one of us is arrogant enough to think they can demand they be treated otherwise though...

Why? Simply because I'm tired of idiots wrecking profound discussion with infantile retorts.

Hey, it's not MY fault that God blessed the world with idiots, and only one, lonely, suffering Prophet. Wait, because I AM GOD, then yes it IS my fault!

Like I said, I don't give a hoot what you think about me,

You don't care what anyone thinks about GOD?!

but I care deeply about my philosophy and have the right to air that philosophy to anyone who wants to listen to it.

And I have the right to trash it if I want, how I want. Until JREF says otherwise, because it's their board. And then I shall overcome their banning with my mighty GOD powers, just as you overcame your bannings elsewhere.

Because I care so much about tearing down your philosophy, I will stop at nothing, not even miraculously overcoming a ban, to do so.

When you abuse my freedom to do this, you abuse the freedom of interested parties also by disjointing the thread.

You have no interested parties. Tell me, who was disjointing the threads for the 3 years before you even met me online? Oh wait, that was other idiots. Which you put there, in your form as GOD, before you decided to come into the Dream and experience your own blessed idiocy. Hallelujah!

In fact, that's the very reason you are doing it. And whether you like it or not, my threads generate alot of serious interest.

They don't Lifegazer, they truly don't. Come on now... don't be so childish. If you want truly adult commentary, here is some for you; If I was genuinely disrupting serious debate here, don't you think somebody else would have made the complaint you say you will make before now? Your interested parties Lifegazer, where are their complaints? How about the people who do post in your threads, hmm? Sure they may think my methods are harsh, they may have no personal love for me at all... but have they complained about me? If you truly believe you generate serious interest, where's the serious discontent with my dissipating that interest?

I know what you'll answer; it'll be back to the Evil JREF Establishment again. And that's why I get away with being so disruptive to you; because your mind was quite clearly disrupted to begin with. I am sure, at the time you wrote what you did, that you genuinely believed you had hordes of people who would want to take you seriously, if only the Evil PSA would disappear. And now I've called your bluff, I expect you'll believe just as passionately that you could never, ever have hoped to impress anybody here, such a den of vipers it is... the problem for you is neither one is true; and you only disprove yourself further with every wild swing of your fevered imagination.

Look, I'll even be kind to you, and agree with you to a little degree; perhaps there have been some complaints about my harshness in general. But if I were to leave these boards tomorrow Lifegazer, your supposed "interested parties" simply wouldn't turn up. They wouldn't. They don't exist. You are wrong.

This is the one and only time I will warn you. If your behaviour persists, I will act. Now, either grow up and have sensible discussions with the rest of us or go and play with the other kiddies in the back garden.
Ta ta. [/B]

Go ahead and act. I'll place my faith in the basic correctness of the JREF Moderators against your faith in the correctness of your own position. A simple test of faith versus faith. You claim I'm detering interested observers: SO PROVE IT. Appeal to the JREF. I state the worst that will happen is that I'll be banned for incivility to you personally (and maybe Interesting Ian)... I absolutely guarantee that no mention will be made of the supposed relevant worth of what you were originally saying, or any complaints from "interested parties" that I was disrupting your with. Because you have no such parties, and no such worth. You are insane.
DO IT LIFEGAZER. You couldn't convert a single poster here after 3 years, but if you can get a mod warning posted which says "PSA is hereby warned for disrupting the highly interesting knowledge Lifegazer was giving us... and for scaring off people who would otherwise have embraced him", I will count that as proof of the miraculous powers you claim you have. Go ahead and act. Get that official confirmation of your own worth. Kill your god in yet more minds of the silent audience we have, the ones who sit and gap and the incredible level of disconnection you have in reality...

... and make my time in your imaginary existant hell even more pleasurable; Oh, I don't believe in it myself... but you supposedly do, don't you Lifegazer? So you'd better also believe I'll spend an eternity laughing at each and every moment I killed your God here in this life. Because if you are right, I most certainly will.

 

[Z]

Once upon a time there was a git... and then he decided he would be a git no more.

The moral of the 'story'? None of us are slaves to "gittery". And, we can be like whatever we choose to be like.

You know what distinguishes a serf from a God? Choice.

Now, why don't you be a good boy and stop spoiling this intelligent discussion? There's absolutely no reason why you can't start your own thread and crack jokes about me and slander me till... well, until hell opens up for you. Just do it in another thread.
Like I said, it will make for good group therapy. Help to bolster the flagging confidence in the reality of humanity.

Now, giving you free license to slander and mock me elsewhere is a pretty good deal, I think. You get to have your laffs with your mates and I get to have sensible discussions.

Now, if you don't accept this deal and continue to abuse me and wreck my threads at the same time, I'm going to make a formal complaint to the JREF establishment. Why? Simply because I'm tired of idiots wrecking profound discussion with infantile retorts.
Like I said, I don't give a hoot what you think about me, but I care deeply about my philosophy and have the right to air that philosophy to anyone who wants to listen to it. When you abuse my freedom to do this, you abuse the freedom of interested parties also by disjointing the thread. In fact, that's the very reason you are doing it. And whether you like it or not, my threads generate alot of serious interest.

This is the one and only time I will warn you. If your behaviour persists, I will act. Now, either grow up and have sensible discussions with the rest of us or go and play with the other kiddies in the back garden.
Ta ta.

Serious interest? OK, show of hands - how many posters here have demonstrated 'serious interest' beyond the point of pointing out the MANY MANY errors of thought he makes?

No one is abusing your right to air your philosophy. We are denying you the slack to misrepresent science and general knowledge and logic in the manner you do.

Come up with better, more solid arguments, and you can air them all day, all night. But so far, you're presenting fairy dust and wondering why we aren't all 'ooo' and 'aaah'-ing at it.

Plus, we also have the right to air our replies - which mainly consist of demonstrating the failures and inconsistancies you have revealed.

 

[H'ethetheth]

My exclusion of the real world - apart from the efforts in this thread - comes after the realisation that existence is non-spatial and boundless.

Every attempt to justify this realisation so far was based on a different theory. We've seen you trying quantum non-locality, speed of sound, relativity and geometry, none of which you demonstrated to understand and ALL of these theories utterly depend on the existence of spacetime.
And aside from the fact that all of the above arguments were rased to the ground, they all stem from your observations, so then they become unsound BS beliefs.
You simply cannot justify your theory with any knowledge from the world of observations. It is not acceptable as sound knowledge. Nothing.

I will ask you again:

Do you consider it possible that your theory does not describe the ultimate truth?