Frank:
Why? You keep making unsupported claims like this. I keep asking you to support them with mathematics or other argument/evidence, but you seem incapable of presenting any.
One last chance, Frank, then I give up on you.
This seems nonsensical. What are y and z and A and v? Explain.
It's not obvious to me. Explain why it cannot do that. It's ok. I'm comfortable with maths. You can make a detailed mathematical argument if you like.
Since neither you nor I have the ultimate understanding of physics, neither of us is in a position to agree or disagree with this claim of yours.
How? Explain.
How so?
How is this evident? Explain the evidence for me.
Does it? What is required for vision?
This doesn't seem to be true in my dreams.
What is this middle distance you are referring to? Explain.
And how can something be both invisible and visible at the same time?
I asked you last time when you planned to start teaching me.
Will you start with your next post, please.
I can't keep waiting for you to begin forever.
You can start by answering my questions, so I can learn from you.
Is this a mystery I'm supposed to solve on my own, or will you teach me your ideas?
If I have to do all the work, then I don't think I'll need you any more.
What is this if not a response?
I've given you a few posts worth of my time. You're beginning to bore me with your lack of response. I'll give you one more post to start explaining. If nothing is forthcoming, then I'm done with you.
How is my credibility on the line? I have made no claims. All I have done is asked you questions. It seems to me that it is your credibility that is very much on the line here.
I'm so glad you're finally willing to help me. Please answer my questions in your next post so I can start learning. I'll even thank you in anticipation. Please don't disappoint me, O Teacher.
Are we playing chess? Please explain.
This is already published - right here on sciforums.
By the way, I own the copyright to my posts here. I do NOT give you permission to republish my words on any other site on the internet or to copy them in any correspondence or other writings of yours published elsewhere. If I find that you have done this, you will be in breach of copyright and subject to potential legal action. Just so you know.
If I find an error, I'll ask about it after your explanations in your following post.
Balanced attraction and repulsion that involves balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity is the requirement of fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Both gravity and inertia must [necessarily] be at half strength/force for such a union to occur. This is required of quantum gravity as well. This can only be done by making space equally (and both) visible and invisible. Opposites must be combined, included, and balanced. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Space must be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in an equivalent and balanced fashion.
Why? You keep making unsupported claims like this. I keep asking you to support them with mathematics or other argument/evidence, but you seem incapable of presenting any.
One last chance, Frank, then I give up on you.
The problem with modern physics is that is tries to be at y and z, when it is not even at A through v. You always begin with the basics and with typical experience.
This seems nonsensical. What are y and z and A and v? Explain.
Now, James R Moderator, mathematics cannot fundamentally and ultimately combine, include, and balance opposites. That is obvious.
It's not obvious to me. Explain why it cannot do that. It's ok. I'm comfortable with maths. You can make a detailed mathematical argument if you like.
The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Do you agree or disagree?
Since neither you nor I have the ultimate understanding of physics, neither of us is in a position to agree or disagree with this claim of yours.
Dreams fundamentally combine and include opposites.
How? Explain.
Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space.
How so?
The visible AND YET INVISIBLE (equivalency and balancing) of inertial/gravitational space in dreams even allows for vision, as this is evident in the invisible and visible space of/inside the body/eye while waking.
How is this evident? Explain the evidence for me.
(Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.)
Does it? What is required for vision?
HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA ARE EQUALLY (AND BOTH) VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE IN DREAMS in keeping with the middle distance in/of space and middle force/energy. Indeed, the space [as a whole/generally] IS semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams. The space in dreams is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible.
This doesn't seem to be true in my dreams.
What is this middle distance you are referring to? Explain.
And how can something be both invisible and visible at the same time?
Moderator -- you have alot to learn. I will teach you.
I asked you last time when you planned to start teaching me.
Will you start with your next post, please.
I can't keep waiting for you to begin forever.
You can start by answering my questions, so I can learn from you.
The direct experience of the body (ALL of it) is fundamental to physics AND thought. I give you a clue Mr. Moderator --- look down at the ground.
Is this a mystery I'm supposed to solve on my own, or will you teach me your ideas?
If I have to do all the work, then I don't think I'll need you any more.
Moderator -- do not continue to evade and deny the truth. Respond!
What is this if not a response?
I've given you a few posts worth of my time. You're beginning to bore me with your lack of response. I'll give you one more post to start explaining. If nothing is forthcoming, then I'm done with you.
Your credibility is on the line, really. I am here to help you. Say thank you. Also, however, get used to the fact that I have fundamentally and generally unified physics.
How is my credibility on the line? I have made no claims. All I have done is asked you questions. It seems to me that it is your credibility that is very much on the line here.
I'm so glad you're finally willing to help me. Please answer my questions in your next post so I can start learning. I'll even thank you in anticipation. Please don't disappoint me, O Teacher.
Moderator, my last post has checkmated you. Seriously, be honest and admit it.
Are we playing chess? Please explain.
Consider your reply very, very carefully. Your reputation and your credibility are on the line here. Do you think that this is not going to be published?
This is already published - right here on sciforums.
By the way, I own the copyright to my posts here. I do NOT give you permission to republish my words on any other site on the internet or to copy them in any correspondence or other writings of yours published elsewhere. If I find that you have done this, you will be in breach of copyright and subject to potential legal action. Just so you know.
If you are still insisting that this is wrong, we want to know EXACTLY why you believe that this is so for the record.
If I find an error, I'll ask about it after your explanations in your following post.