4th Dimension Question

[Persol]

Originally posted by MacM
Persol,
1 - An illusive field.
Hardly... what exactly is illusive about it,
ANS: This statement is so ludricrus it doesn't even merit a response.
Really, I thought it was a good question, since you made the claim you should be able to back it up.

and how is the Chiral Condensate a field?
ANS: Here I did use a bad choice of words. The CC isn't properly called a field but I did that in that I was thinking of the field that I view coming from it but the CC wouldn't be called a field. That however is almost a mute point if one wasn't being picky.
No, it is a VERY important point. Chiral condensate has VERY defined a very define 'border' when it is observed. It is in NO way a field.

The statement has meaning as is for the purpose of this discussion. However technically I would agree it isn't a field in the normal use of the word.
The statment is wrong. Introducing wrong statements 'for the purpose of this discussion' is incorrect. Granted, if you just used the wrong word, what word did you mean to use?

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
It is no more packed with dynamic energy then a molecule in a particle accelerator.
ANS: Again an absolutely ludicrous statement using BS. Of course one can push particles to 0.999999c and gets vast amounts of energy. But even trying to use this as some common place condition (which is is not) I challenge you to show that anything in nature or in our best high energy acclerator has come within even a small fraction of 1-E105 - 10E138 ergs/cm^3.
That number has NOTHING to do with dynamic energy. It is simply an energy density, which is expected to also be observed (if we could get there) in stars and such. The chiral condensates formed do not have such a humungeous amount of energy, because they are quite small... and that number is just the energy density.

The CC on the other hand exists naturally
Yes, but yet again has nothing to do with anything.

Please show us where someone says it is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe.
ANS: The following link is a sub-linkd which covered several issues in an overall link to CC. It also mentions vacuum energy in the text. I also have posted it previously on SciForums.
Once again, not everything having to do with ZPE is related to the chiral condensate. That's me saying you must be transparent because your body is water. This site does not say anything that would relate dark energy or graivty to the chiral condensate.

This is the one thing I previously agreed with you was actually part of this theory... although I disagree with saying is from "Nothing", as certain events have to take place for a chiral condensate to form.
ANS: But in the most general sense I believe what has been said is valid, it isn't fabricated BS.
I do not disagree that the equation is valid.... i just think it is pointless and presents an oversimplified view.

5 - I could name perhaps 3-4 more things
Please do, and answer the questions above while you are at it.
ANS: I don't see a question above. I see a statement
What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?

And once again, since you claim "NOTHING have said above is valid", please point out the incorrect statements I've made about the Chiral Condensate
ANS: Now its my turn. Show me where I have said you made incorrect statements.
And I quote:

NOTHING you have said above is valid. It is ALL BS that has been distorted to suit your version of truth.

If it is not valid, it is incorrect. That should be obvious to you.

I simply said "If it was statements you had made I wasn't interested". I am interested in what researchers have to say.
Perhaps you should pay better attention to them then.

Wheeler has used relativity to advance towards finding causes.
All of the research I've seen of Wheeler's are effects of relativity, not causes.

So, we are left with:
1) Why is the field illusive?
1b) What did you mean to call it instead of a field?
2) Why do you claim it is 'packed' with dynamic energy?
3) Where does someone knowledgable in the field says the chiral condensate is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe?
5) What are the 3 or 4 other things which you could name?
6) What causes did Wheeler say he was looking for for relativity?

 

[MacM]

Originally posted by MacM
Persol,
1 - An illusive field.
Hardly... what exactly is illusive about it,
ANS: This statement is so ludricrus it doesn't even merit a response.
Really, I thought it was a good question, since you made the claim you should be able to back it up.

ANS:Not only because other (namely research) have commented that it is illusive, it would seem to be most obvious since we are only now beginning to crack it open and it is not seen in its natural state. It is extremely difficult to access. I and most others than you would call that illusive.

and how is the Chiral Condensate a field?
ANS: Here I did use a bad choice of words. The CC isn't properly called a field but I did that in that I was thinking of the field that I view coming from it but the CC wouldn't be called a field. That however is almost a mute point if one wasn't being picky.
No, it is a VERY important point. Chiral condensate has VERY defined a very define 'border' when it is observed. It is in NO way a field.

ANS: I have already stated the term "Field" was a misapplication. But I do challenge your attitude that it somehow is paramount factor to these discussions.

The statement has meaning as is for the purpose of this discussion. However technically I would agree it isn't a field in the normal use of the word.
The statment is wrong. Introducing wrong statements 'for the purpose of this discussion' is incorrect. Granted, if you just used the wrong word, what word did you mean to use?

ANS: That more than anything is why I just used the term "Filed" since I have never seen it technically described. So I guess until I see an actual technical description, I'll just stick with the one I have quated before made by the researchers. "It is a "Super Solid but in a form we do not yet understand". And please don't argue with me, argue with the researchers, since it was their description verbatum.

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
It is no more packed with dynamic energy then a molecule in a particle accelerator.
ANS: Again an absolutely ludicrous statement using BS. Of course one can push particles to 0.999999c and gets vast amounts of energy. But even trying to use this as some common place condition (which is is not) I challenge you to show that anything in nature or in our best high energy acclerator has come within even a small fraction of 1-E105 - 10E138 ergs/cm^3.
That number has NOTHING to do with dynamic energy. It is simply an energy density, which is expected to also be observed (if we could get there) in stars and such. The chiral condensates formed do not have such a humungeous amount of energy, because they are quite small... and that number is just the energy density.

ANS: Your comments here show just how desperate you are. It is energy and it is dynamic, Wheeler described it as a seething foam. I'd call that dynamic. You call it whatever suits you but if you say it isn't dynamic you show your ignorance.
So dynamic energy stands unless you also want to challenge Wheeler. I do believe my postings showing 10E105 ergs/cm^3 and 10E138 ergs/cm^3 are density terms. So what is your point? The net energy is believed infact to be exactly zero. So what is your point. Or do you want to discuss 0------>(+n)+(-n)?

The CC on the other hand exists naturally
Yes, but yet again has nothing to do with anything.

ANS: What kind of absurd statement is this? It has to do with a great deal as already stated. If you like I will start to compile all the various sub-topics being studied under the Chiral Condensate term.

Please show us where someone says it is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe.
ANS: The following link is a sub-linkd which covered several issues in an overall link to CC. It also mentions vacuum energy in the text. I also have posted it previously on SciForums.
Once again, not everything having to do with ZPE is related to the chiral condensate. That's me saying you must be transparent because your body is water. This site does not say anything that would relate dark energy or graivty to the chiral condensate.

ANS: Nice try but if you like I will post the master link which is under the heading of Chiral Condensate and this is one of the sub-topic links under that heading. Unless you think they have deliberate grouped a bunch of unrelated topics under Chiral Condenste in error, you are wrong period.

This is the one thing I previously agreed with you was actually part of this theory... although I disagree with saying is from "Nothing", as certain events have to take place for a chiral condensate to form.
ANS: But in the most general sense I believe what has been said is valid, it isn't fabricated BS.
I do not disagree that the equation is valid.... i just think it is pointless and presents an oversimplified view.

ANS:Granted it most certainly doesn't describe nor offer insight into how "Nothing" is bifurcated by the universe into "Something", it is the basic principle. You smart guys need to work on the details. Simplified or over simplified is a matter of perspective. If I claimed it was the process, then yes it would be over simplified since it doesn't give directions on how the process works. But as presented and as claimed, that it mathematically shows how it may occur and not violate consdervation, it is not over simplified. It is just plain simple and that is part of its beauty.

5 - I could name perhaps 3-4 more things
Please do, and answer the questions above while you are at it.
ANS: I don't see a question above. I see a statement
What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?

ANS: I'll deal with this distraction should you request a list as stated above.

And once again, since you claim "NOTHING have said above is valid", please point out the incorrect statements I've made about the Chiral Condensate
ANS: Now its my turn. Show me where I have said you made incorrect statements.
And I quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTHING you have said above is valid. It is ALL BS that has been distorted to suit your version of truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it is not valid, it is incorrect. That should be obvious to you.

ANS: I do believe if you look at the context this statement was made in it wasn't refering to anything you may or may not have said regarding Chiral Condensate perse but the immediate statements you were making regarding me or comments about my statements. I have not critiqued your comments about Chiral Codensate but I suspect they fall considerably short of being totally accurate or complete.


I simply said "If it was statements you had made I wasn't interested". I am interested in what researchers have to say.
Perhaps you should pay better attention to them then.

ANSPerhaps you should also and when you make sniping comments toward others you should include direct statements to support your claim of error and not rely uon your questionable crediability to carry the weight.

Wheeler has used relativity to advance towards finding causes.
All of the research I've seen of Wheeler's are effects of relativity, not causes.

ANS: Describing the CC as an underlying substrate (if you will accept that term), is providing a medium for "causes".I have said before and I'll say once more. "I do not oppose Relavistic Principles". They appear to be a reality but I do oppose The Theory of Relativity as it is presented without underlying "causes" and claim that because it is being accepted as a postulate without cause is being extrapolated beyond its true meaning and application.

So, we are left with:
1) Why is the field illusive?
1b) What did you mean to call it instead of a field?
2) Why do you claim it is 'packed' with dynamic energy?
3) Where does someone knowledgable in the field says the chiral condensate is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe?
5) What are the 3 or 4 other things which you could name?
6) What causes did Wheeler say he was looking for for relativity?

ANS: We ar left with #5 and #6:

#5: If you insist I will compile all the various topics of research cited under the overall term "Chiral Condensate".

#6: Where did I state that Mr Wheeler said I am looking for causes? But that doesn't alter the fact that he is finding them.

So in reality we are left with only one #5. And frankly I am more inclined to tell you to just kiss off, since this has nothing to do with anything but your poor excuse of trying to appear superior. Which is interesting since initially you seemed to never even have heard of the term CC.[/color]

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by MacM
1 - An illusive field.
ANS:Not only because other (namely research) have commented that it is illusive, it would seem to be most obvious since we are only now beginning to crack it open and it is not seen in its natural state. It is extremely difficult to access. I and most others than you would call that illusive.
You have yet to say why this is illusive. What is it about it that is illusive?

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
ANS: Your comments here show just how desperate you are. It is energy and it is dynamic, Wheeler described it as a seething foam. I'd call that dynamic. You call it whatever suits you but if you say it isn't dynamic you show your ignorance.
Repeating yourself doesn't do any good here. do you know the definition of dynamic energy? Do you know that your erg/cm^3 is not actually measuring this? My pot of water is currently seething foam, that doens't make it full of dynamic energy. Very little of your erg/cm^3 value is actually dynamic energy. This number is NOT dynamic energy, and you have yet to show why the dynamic energy of this system is impressive.

The net energy is believed infact to be exactly zero. So what is your point. Or do you want to discuss 0------>(+n)+(-n)?
You have yet to show any knowledge of WHY it is zero. Your half matter half energy post a page or two ago was nonsense.

The CC on the other hand exists naturally
Yes, but yet again has nothing to do with anything.
ANS: What kind of absurd statement is this? It has to do with a great deal as already stated.
Well no, nobody is arguing that it doesn't exist. We are arguing that you don't understand it and are misrepresenting it.

If you like I will start to compile all the various sub-topics being studied under the Chiral Condensate term
Please do.

ANS: Nice try but if you like I will post the master link which is under the heading of Chiral Condensate and this is one of the sub-topic links under that heading.
Please provide this link.

ANS:If I claimed it was the process, then yes it would be over simplified since it doesn't give directions on how the process works. But as presented and as claimed, that it mathematically shows how it may occur and not violate consdervation, it is not over simplified. It is just plain simple and that is part of its beauty.
The point is that everybody knows it, and is pointless to post. The equation doesn't stand alone, as knowbody knows what you are talking about without a description. You might as well just skip to writing a line about virtual particles and energy balance.

5 - What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?
ANS: I'll deal with this distraction should you request a list as stated above.
Please show the list.

ANS: I do believe if you look at the context this statement was made in it wasn't refering to anything you may or may not have said regarding Chiral Condensate perse but the immediate statements you were making regarding me or comments about my statements. I have not critiqued your comments about Chiral Codensate but I suspect they fall considerably short of being totally accurate or complete.
Well now that's the point isn't it. You said one thing about what the chiral condensate is, I said another. For my comment that you don't know what you are talking about to be wrong, you must demonstrate that my view on it is wrong. If you can actually do that, then fine... but I doubt it.

ANS: and not rely uon your questionable crediability to carry the weight.
Lol... perhaps we should count the number of times you have been shown correct in one of these posts that I disagreed with you. Oh yeah... none.

ANS: Describing the CC as an underlying substrate (if you will accept that term), is providing a medium for "causes".
Sorry, but I won't accept that term. The Chiral Condensate as we observe it is an isolated RESULT of a relativistic collision. It is not a 'substrate'. It IS suspected to be part of the cause that these collisions play out like a game of billards.

I have said before and I'll say once more. "I do not oppose Relavistic Principles". They appear to be a reality
Wow, I think we made progress here. When you first came you claimed that it was not reality, but just math... impressive.

but I do oppose The Theory of Relativity as it is presented without underlying "causes"
Please show me the underlying cause for an ether theory, UniKEF, biology, etc etc.. Plus, if you want to, you can look at quantum mechanics as the 'cause'.

and claim that because it is being accepted as a postulate without cause
That isn't how science works. I have a postulate. Because of this posulate X, Y, and Z must happen. Tada, a theory is born.

So in reality we are left with only one #5. And frankly I am more inclined to tell you to just kiss off...
Wait, so I read your documents, but you are incapable of providing links to your 3 or 4 other things, which you seem to already have seen? Provide the links.


Which is interesting since initially you seemed to never even have heard of the term CC.
That's the difference between you and me. We post about relativity, you claim it is wrong and ignore it. You post about chiral condensate, I go out and research it. Along the way I find your view of it is wrong.

So, we are left with (again):
1) Why is the field illusive?
2) Why do you claim it is 'packed' with dynamic energy?
3) Where does someone knowledgable in the field says the chiral condensate is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe? Please provide the link.
5) What are the 3 or 4 other things which you could name? Please provide links.
6) What causes is Wheeler finding?

 

[MacM]

Originally posted by MacM
1 - An illusive field.
ANS:Not only because other (namely research) have commented that it is illusive, it would seem to be most obvious since we are only now beginning to crack it open and it is not seen in its natural state. It is extremely difficult to access. I and most others than you would call that illusive.
You have yet to say why this is illusive. What is it about it that is illusive?

ANS: You may want to play stupid and dance forever but I will not. You've carried this BS more than far enough. I've made my statement so perhaps you will oblige us with your description of why it is not illusive. Beyond you doing that I win, you lose and look more and more inept.

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
ANS: Your comments here show just how desperate you are. It is energy and it is dynamic, Wheeler described it as a seething foam. I'd call that dynamic. You call it whatever suits you but if you say it isn't dynamic you show your ignorance.
Repeating yourself doesn't do any good here. do you know the definition of dynamic energy? Do you know that your erg/cm^3 is not actually measuring this? My pot of water is currently seething foam, that doens't make it full of dynamic energy. Very little of your erg/cm^3 value is actually dynamic energy. This number is NOT dynamic energy, and you have yet to show why the dynamic energy of this system is impressive.

ANS: Has somebody erroneously told you you were a debator? The little three letter AND has meaning. Your tendancy to pick on such issue after being given suitable response doesn't merit further comment. To argue that boiling water as a seething foam is not dynamic it absolutely beyond childish and you can go choke your chicken. You lost end of story. To suggest that an energy density term has anything to do with being dynamic is also ludricrus. I haven't so go argue with yourself.

The net energy is believed infact to be exactly zero. So what is your point. Or do you want to discuss 0------>(+n)+(-n)?
You have yet to show any knowledge of WHY it is zero.

ANS: I have no obligation to show why it is zero but frankly I would find it difficult to think otherwise. If it weren't then my 0--------->(+n)+(-n) term would not exist and we would be faced with trying to understand the origin.

Your half matter half energy post a page or two ago was nonsense.

ANS: Here I have no idea what you are babbeling about. I suspect you "half" read something.


The CC on the other hand exists naturally
Yes, but yet again has nothing to do with anything.
ANS: What kind of absurd statement is this? It has to do with a great deal as already stated.
Well no, nobody is arguing that it doesn't exist. We are arguing that you don't understand it and are misrepresenting it.

ANS:And I'm arguing that you are full of BS. I call that a draw

If you like I will start to compile all the various sub-topics being studied under the Chiral Condensate term
Please do.

ANS:In consideration of the number of times you have accused me of being off topic and stealing threads, etc. I think I'm just going to blow you off. Anyone interested can surf the web without me expending my time and wasting others time here playing your stupid little tit-tat games. Anybody that doesn't believe that there are numerous aspects of the CC being studied simply haven't taken a look under the approximately 2,000 sites that pop up if you search "Chiral Condensate". Go waste somebodyelse's time you, have wasted enough of mine.

ANS: Nice try but if you like I will post the master link which is under the heading of Chiral Condensate and this is one of the sub-topic links under that heading.
Please provide this link.

ANS:Same answer as above. Kiss off. Go play with yourself. You nor this leads to anything useful.

ANS:If I claimed it was the process, then yes it would be over simplified since it doesn't give directions on how the process works. But as presented and as claimed, that it mathematically shows how it may occur and not violate consdervation, it is not over simplified. It is just plain simple and that is part of its beauty.
The point is that everybody knows it, and is pointless to post. The equation doesn't stand alone, as knowbody knows what you are talking about without a description. You might as well just skip to writing a line about virtual particles and energy balance.


ANS: Actually you and only a couple of others have made anything negative out of it. The overwhelming response has been positive and frankly I don't give a damn what you like or think of it. Until I posted 0--->(+n)+(-n) here the arguement was "Something" cannot come from "Nothing". My formula says otherwise. That makes it important and germain.

5 - What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?
ANS: I'll deal with this distraction should you request a list as stated above.
Please show the list.

ANS: Given above. Kiss off.

ANS: I do believe if you look at the context this statement was made in it wasn't refering to anything you may or may not have said regarding Chiral Condensate perse but the immediate statements you were making regarding me or comments about my statements. I have not critiqued your comments about Chiral Codensate but I suspect they fall considerably short of being totally accurate or complete.
Well now that's the point isn't it. You said one thing about what the chiral condensate is, I said another. For my comment that you don't know what you are talking about to be wrong, you must demonstrate that my view on it is wrong. If you can actually do that, then fine... but I doubt it.

ANS: As I stated, I don't even know what you claim CC is and frankly I don't care because you don't actually know and weren't even discussing it unitl I used the term. If you tink I am ging to argue with you at the level of whether or not "Seething Foam" is "Dynamic" or not you are nuts. You have nothing positive to contribute (in my opinion) and it is up to you to prove otherwise, not up to me to prove anything further.

ANS: and not rely uon your questionable crediability to carry the weight.
Lol... perhaps we should count the number of times you have been shown correct in one of these posts that I disagreed with you. Oh yeah... none.

ANS: There is indeed a difference in being shown correct (where posters refuse to accept being shown they are in error and argue indefinitely as you seem to want to do here) and actually being correct. The Einstein quote below proves this point.

If you start to look around you may find others are starting to come out of the wood work and agree with me - i.e.: Changing Pi, 3 Clocks, etc. Your little blue wall is crumbling sir.

I started to work on your list and I ran across this. Based on this I think it is time to tell you and the others that have been smart mouthing me to take a hike. I have provided more than enough rebuttal that other readers here can form their own opinion on who they should believe.

*******************************************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein

an address delivered

on May 5th, 1920, in

the University of Leyden

************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech*************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,....................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

********************************************

ANS: Describing the CC as an underlying substrate (if you will accept that term), is providing a medium for "causes".
Sorry, but I won't accept that term. The Chiral Condensate as we observe it is an isolated RESULT of a relativistic collision. It is not a 'substrate'. It IS suspected to be part of the cause that these collisions play out like a game of billards.


ANS: Why would I be surprised. The relavistic collision is merely breaking it into its components. It doesn't exist because of relavistic collisions.

I have said before and I'll say once more. "I do not oppose Relavistic Principles". They appear to be a reality
Wow, I think we made progress here. When you first came you claimed that it was not reality, but just math... impressive.

ANS:No progress to be made that has been my position. UniKEF too has some of the same relavistic relationships but based on causes.

but I do oppose The Theory of Relativity as it is presented without underlying "causes"
Please show me the underlying cause for an ether theory, UniKEF, biology, etc etc.. Plus, if you want to, you can look at quantum mechanics as the 'cause'.

ANS:You have already stated you don't want a cause. That is your perogative but it is poor science.

and claim that because it is being accepted as a postulate without cause
That isn't how science works. I have a postulate. Because of this posulate X, Y, and Z must happen. Tada, a theory is born.


ANS: A theory without a cause is incomplete and leads to erroneous extrapolations, as I have already shown in the Team "A", Team "B" contest. Enough said

So in reality we are left with only one #5. And frankly I am more inclined to tell you to just kiss off...
Wait, so I read your documents, but you are incapable of providing links to your 3 or 4 other things, which you seem to already have seen? Provide the links.

ANS:Up yours. Basis given above.

Which is interesting since initially you seemed to never even have heard of the term CC.
That's the difference between you and me. We post about relativity, you claim it is wrong and ignore it. You post about chiral condensate, I go out and research it. Along the way I find your view of it is wrong.

ANS: So says Persol. I have yet to see one statement with a corrected posting. Your word is insufficient.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by MacM
Originally posted by MacM
1 - An illusive field.
ANS:Not only because other (namely research) have commented that it is illusive, it would seem to be most obvious since we are only now beginning to crack it open and it is not seen in its natural state. It is extremely difficult to access. I and most others than you would call that illusive.
You have yet to say why this is illusive. What is it about it that is illusive?

ANS: You may want to play stupid and dance forever but I will not. You've carried this BS more than far enough. I've made my statement so perhaps you will oblige us with your description of why it is not illusive. Beyond you doing that I win, you lose and look more and more inept.

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
ANS: Your comments here show just how desperate you are. It is energy and it is dynamic, Wheeler described it as a seething foam. I'd call that dynamic. You call it whatever suits you but if you say it isn't dynamic you show your ignorance.
Repeating yourself doesn't do any good here. do you know the definition of dynamic energy? Do you know that your erg/cm^3 is not actually measuring this? My pot of water is currently seething foam, that doens't make it full of dynamic energy. Very little of your erg/cm^3 value is actually dynamic energy. This number is NOT dynamic energy, and you have yet to show why the dynamic energy of this system is impressive.

ANS: Has somebody erroneously told you you were a debator? The little three letter AND has meaning. Your tendancy to pick on such issue after being given suitable response doesn't merit further comment. To argue that boiling water as a seething foam is not dynamic it absolutely beyond childish and you can go choke your chicken. You lost end of story. To suggest that an energy density term has anything to do with being dynamic is also ludricrus. I haven't so go argue with yourself.

The net energy is believed infact to be exactly zero. So what is your point. Or do you want to discuss 0------>(+n)+(-n)?
You have yet to show any knowledge of WHY it is zero.

ANS: I have no obligation to show why it is zero but frankly I would find it difficult to think otherwise. If it weren't then my 0--------->(+n)+(-n) term would not exist and we would be faced with trying to understand the origin.



ANS: Here I have no idea what you are babbeling about. I suspect you "half" read something.


The CC on the other hand exists naturally
Yes, but yet again has nothing to do with anything.
ANS: What kind of absurd statement is this? It has to do with a great deal as already stated.
Well no, nobody is arguing that it doesn't exist. We are arguing that you don't understand it and are misrepresenting it.

ANS:And I'm arguing that you are full of BS. I call that a draw

If you like I will start to compile all the various sub-topics being studied under the Chiral Condensate term
Please do.

ANS:In consideration of the number of times you have accused me of being off topic and stealing threads, etc. I think I'm just going to blow you off. Anyone interested can surf the web without me expending my time and wasting others time here playing your stupid little tit-tat games. Anybody that doesn't believe that there are numerous aspects of the CC being studied simply haven't taken a look under the approximately 2,000 sites that pop up if you search "Chiral Condensate". Go waste somebodyelse's time you, have wasted enough of mine.

ANS: Nice try but if you like I will post the master link which is under the heading of Chiral Condensate and this is one of the sub-topic links under that heading.
Please provide this link.

ANS:Same answer as above. Kiss off. Go play with yourself. You nor this leads to anything useful.

ANS:If I claimed it was the process, then yes it would be over simplified since it doesn't give directions on how the process works. But as presented and as claimed, that it mathematically shows how it may occur and not violate consdervation, it is not over simplified. It is just plain simple and that is part of its beauty.
The point is that everybody knows it, and is pointless to post. The equation doesn't stand alone, as knowbody knows what you are talking about without a description. You might as well just skip to writing a line about virtual particles and energy balance.


ANS: Actually you and only a couple of others have made anything negative out of it. The overwhelming response has been positive and frankly I don't give a damn what you like or think of it. Until I posted 0--->(+n)+(-n) here the arguement was "Something" cannot come from "Nothing". My formula says otherwise. That makes it important and germain.

5 - What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?
ANS: I'll deal with this distraction should you request a list as stated above.
Please show the list.

ANS: Given above. Kiss off.

ANS: I do believe if you look at the context this statement was made in it wasn't refering to anything you may or may not have said regarding Chiral Condensate perse but the immediate statements you were making regarding me or comments about my statements. I have not critiqued your comments about Chiral Codensate but I suspect they fall considerably short of being totally accurate or complete.
Well now that's the point isn't it. You said one thing about what the chiral condensate is, I said another. For my comment that you don't know what you are talking about to be wrong, you must demonstrate that my view on it is wrong. If you can actually do that, then fine... but I doubt it.

ANS: As I stated, I don't even know what you claim CC is and frankly I don't care because you don't actually know and weren't even discussing it unitl I used the term. If you tink I am ging to argue with you at the level of whether or not "Seething Foam" is "Dynamic" or not you are nuts. You have nothing positive to contribute (in my opinion) and it is up to you to prove otherwise, not up to me to prove anything further.

ANS: and not rely uon your questionable crediability to carry the weight.
Lol... perhaps we should count the number of times you have been shown correct in one of these posts that I disagreed with you. Oh yeah... none.

ANS: There is indeed a difference in being shown correct (where posters refuse to accept being shown they are in error and argue indefinitely as you seem to want to do here) and actually being correct. The Einstein quote below proves this point.

If you start to look around you may find others are starting to come out of the wood work and agree with me - i.e.: Changing Pi, 3 Clocks, etc. Your little blue wall is crumbling sir.

I started to work on your list and I ran across this. Based on this I think it is time to tell you and the others that have been smart mouthing me to take a hike. I have provided more than enough rebuttal that other readers here can form their own opinion on who they should believe.

*******************************************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein

an address delivered

on May 5th, 1920, in

the University of Leyden

************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech*************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,....................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

********************************************

ANS: Describing the CC as an underlying substrate (if you will accept that term), is providing a medium for "causes".
Sorry, but I won't accept that term. The Chiral Condensate as we observe it is an isolated RESULT of a relativistic collision. It is not a 'substrate'. It IS suspected to be part of the cause that these collisions play out like a game of billards.


ANS: Why would I be surprised. The relavistic collision is merely breaking it into its components. It doesn't exist because of relavistic collisions.

I have said before and I'll say once more. "I do not oppose Relavistic Principles". They appear to be a reality
Wow, I think we made progress here. When you first came you claimed that it was not reality, but just math... impressive.

ANS:No progress to be made that has been my position. UniKEF too has some of the same relavistic relationships but based on causes.

but I do oppose The Theory of Relativity as it is presented without underlying "causes"
Please show me the underlying cause for an ether theory, UniKEF, biology, etc etc.. Plus, if you want to, you can look at quantum mechanics as the 'cause'.

ANS:You have already stated you don't want a cause. That is your perogative but it is poor science.

and claim that because it is being accepted as a postulate without cause
That isn't how science works. I have a postulate. Because of this posulate X, Y, and Z must happen. Tada, a theory is born.


ANS: A theory without a cause is incomplete and leads to erroneous extrapolations, as I have already shown in the Team "A", Team "B" contest. Enough said

So in reality we are left with only one #5. And frankly I am more inclined to tell you to just kiss off...
Wait, so I read your documents, but you are incapable of providing links to your 3 or 4 other things, which you seem to already have seen? Provide the links.

ANS:Up yours. Basis given above.

Which is interesting since initially you seemed to never even have heard of the term CC.
That's the difference between you and me. We post about relativity, you claim it is wrong and ignore it. You post about chiral condensate, I go out and research it. Along the way I find your view of it is wrong.

ANS: So says Persol. I have yet to see one statement with a corrected posting. Your word is insufficient.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by MacM
1 - An illusive field.
ANS: I've made my statement so perhaps you will oblige us with your description of why it is not illusive.
Very simply, you can claim all kinds of stupid stuff, which can not be proven false. That doesn't make it right. You claim that it is illusive, I claim that you would think it was so illusive if you actually researched it.

2 - Packed with dynamic energy.
ANS: The little three letter AND has meaning.
You originally said that the large amount of dynamic energy is one of the reasons it could fit with your thinking. By this measure, by pot of water also fits that qualification, as the amount of dynamic energy is incredibly small.

To suggest that an energy density term has anything to do with being dynamic is also ludricrus. I haven't so go argue with yourself.
This is your only reference to energy at all, and yes... you used it to argue the dynamic energy bit... which as I said was unrelated.

The net energy is believed infact to be exactly zero. So what is your point. Or do you want to discuss 0------>(+n)+(-n)?
ANS: I have no obligation to show why it is zero but frankly I would find it difficult to think otherwise. If it weren't then my 0--------->(+n)+(-n) term would not exist and we would be faced with trying to understand the origin.
Excuse me? If if the energy balance turns out to be wrong, that equation of your still would exist. It would just be wrong. You are looking for causes... I am asking what cuases that to equal 0.

ANS: Here I have no idea what you are babbeling about. I suspect you "half" read something.
Sorry, you assume wrong. You said earlier: "0-------->(+n)+(-n) "Something" from bifurcating "Nothing" into equal amounts of +/- material and energy." And I still think this is complete nonsense.

ANS:In consideration of the number of times you have accused me of being off topic and stealing threads, etc. I think I'm just going to blow you off.
Wait, so now that we are in your thread, you decide the topic isn't worth discussing? So you're just going to wait to bring it back up latter?

Anyone interested can surf the web without me expending my time and wasting others time here playing your stupid little tit-tat games.
Yes, and they will immediately understand why you have no clue what you are talking about.

Anybody that doesn't believe that there are numerous aspects of the CC being studied simply haven't taken a look under the approximately 2,000 sites that pop up if you search "Chiral Condensate".
You'll notice that 99% of those sites are researching the dynamics of the chiral condensate... nothing else. This is what I said from the begining. Of your 2000 sites, they are mostly all researching the SAME thing.

ANS: Nice try but if you like I will post the master link which is under the heading of Chiral Condensate and this is one of the sub-topic links under that heading.
Please provide this link.
ANS:Same answer as above. Kiss off. Go play with yourself. You nor this leads to anything useful.
Did you just realize that the master document doesn't actually mention chiral condensate either? Trust me, I looked at it before I called you on it. No mention of Chiral Condensate. Once again, this link had nothing to do with the topic.


5 - What are the 3 or 4 things which you could name? Better?
ANS: Given above. Kiss off.
What, you can't find anything? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we were supposed to take your word on stuff and not question it. We've put in a lot of work to answer your comments, you are too lazy to do the same. I've looked for proof of your comments before I call you on them. I didn't find any, and what I did find contradicts you.

ANS: There is indeed a difference in being shown correct (where posters refuse to accept being shown they are in error and argue indefinitely as you seem to want to do here) and actually being correct.
Please, show me being in error. Other people have done it before. If you are indeed right, a link would suffice. However, since you are incapable of answering any of my questions I'm going to have to stick with my view of Chiral Condensate and reassert that your view is distorted.

ANS: The relavistic collision is merely breaking it into its components. It doesn't exist because of relavistic collisions.
Proof of that comment please. All the papers I have read have said the opposite.

ANS: I have yet to see one statement with a corrected posting. Your word is insufficient.
Well, I went out and actually did research on the subject... so yeah, my word is worth something. If you say it is wrong then show why. So far EVERY link you've provided has not demonstrated the point you've been arguing.

So, we are left with:
1) Why is the field illusive?
2) Why do you claim it is 'packed' with dynamic energy?
3) Where does someone knowledgable in the field says the chiral condensate is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe? Please provide the link.
5) What are the 3 or 4 other things which you could name? Please provide links.
6) What causes is Wheeler finding?
7) Why/How does nothing 'bifurcate into equal amounts of +/- material and energy'?

Common, just 6 simple questions. Links would suffice.

 

[MacM]

Persol,

I'll only partially agree with one statement you have made.

The over whelming majority of CC research is targeted around one area of research but it is about many different aspects of it but more importantly that fact does not alter the fact that the issues I have cited, plus many others are infact also cited. So your statement adds nor changes anything factually AND IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD READERS.

Other than that considering that your response is a continuation of your fabricated, distorted dribble and meaningless distractive selfserving garbage and the fact that anyone can click a keyboard without me clearly wasting my time running around jumping when you jerk on a string, I'll not even re-re-re-re-re-address you point by point.

You have contributed ONLY ONE IMPORTANT NEW FACTOR HERE.

FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON YOU SEEMED TO HAVE OVER LOOKED THE ONE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE I RAISED IN MY POST WHICH IS THE ONLY ISSUE RELATED TO THIS STRING DEALING WITH AN ETHER. THAT IS "WHAT DID ALBERT EINSTEIN HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ETHER.

THAT IS THE FOLLOWING SEGMENT OF MY POST AND YOU HAVE NO COMMENT REGARDING YOUR ONGOING SLANDERS DIRECTED AT ME REGARDING MY POSTING THIS TOPIC ABOUT ETHER.

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE READERSHIP WHY THAT IS.


I have provided more than enough rebuttal that other readers here can form their own opinion on who they should believe.

*******************************************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein

an address delivered

on May 5th, 1920, in

the University of Leyden

************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech*************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,....................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.

********************************************


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[Persol]

You have said:
1) the field illusive
We know what is it, and how to get it. We have the math to predict it's behaviour (although the parameters are being tuned). What exactly is illusive?

2) the field 'packed' with dynamic energy
The field is no more pack with dynamic energy then any other matter is. Why do you consider this special?

3) the chiral condensate is responsible for dark energy, gravity, and accelerated expansion of the universe
You have yet to provide a link that says, or even hints, at this. The chiral condensate is it's own effect. The quantum physics components of it have already been discovered, and were already being researched. The chiral condensate research deals with 1 thing... particle dynamics. The few non-dynamics based research are verifying already existing theories that have been demonstrated with other effects

5) There are 2 or 4 other things which argree with your theory.
Yet you are unable to name them?

6) Wheeler is researching causes
You fail to see that Wheeler is just trying to make better predictions, not find causes.

7) nothing 'bifurcates into equal amounts of +/- material and energy'
You have not said when this happens, or how you have negative matter or energy

A quote from Einstein does not answer any of these questions. Would you find a quote from a scientist about SR meaningful to the discussion? You can claim there is ether, fine... but don't dare claim that this is it (or even looks like it). You have not been able to provide a shread of evidence that this meets your needs, or that you know what the hell it is.

 

[malkiri]

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about all this stuff, so I'm not challenging any of the basics of this argument.

That being said...

2 - Packed with dynamic energy. (MacM)
It is no more packed with dynamic energy then a molecule in a particle accelerator. (Persol)

ANS: Again an absolutely ludicrous statement using BS. Of course one can push particles to 0.999999c and gets vast amounts of energy. But even trying to use this as some common place condition (which is is not) I challenge you to show that anything in nature or in our best high energy acclerator has come within even a small fraction of 1-E105 - 10E138 ergs/cm^3. COME ON, I WANT TO SEE YOUR COMMON PLACE DATA FOR SUCH ENERGY IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. YOU OPENED YOUR MOUTH NOW TRY AND PULL YOUR FOOT OUT OF IT. THIS IS A TOTALLY ASSININE STATEMENT.

The CC on the other hand exists naturally (MacM)

ANS: Has somebody erroneously told you you were a debator? The little three letter AND has meaning. Your tendancy to pick on such issue after being given suitable response doesn't merit further comment. To argue that boiling water as a seething foam is not dynamic it absolutely beyond childish and you can go choke your chicken. You lost end of story. To suggest that an energy density term has anything to do with being dynamic is also ludricrus. I haven't so go argue with yourself. (MacM)

Persol presents a statement, right or wrong, about dynamic energy. MacM, your reply doesn't mention dynamic energy, instead asserting that an accelerator is unable to reach a particular level of energy density. You say you haven't related this energy density term to energy being dynamic. If not, then what relevance did citing that number have?

It is energy and it is dynamic, Wheeler described it as a seething foam. I'd call that dynamic.

Using the word "and" doesn't make this any stronger evidence. If seething foam is a necessary and sufficient description of dynamic energy, then never mind this paragraph. But if not, as it seems from Persol's argument about the water (which, if it isn't correct, you don't substantially refute), then you haven't yet given any reason to believe the CC is filled with dynamic energy.

About the illusive stuff (should this be "elusive"?)...the only definition for 'illusive' I've seen so far is 'difficult to access.' Is this correct?

Refusing outright to provide the support Persol is asking for (that is, the '3 or 4 things') doesn't make your argument seem more plausible. You've seemed rather evasive about many things throughout this thread. It may be a lack of understanding on my part, but I suspect not in many cases.

 

[MacM]

malkiri,

First let me thank you for the opportunity to respond to your points. I am going to do that rather than attempt any further to respond to Persol in that he has repeatedly continued to repeat the same charges regardless of replies given him.

i.e. - The meaning of "illusive" . It is illusive in that it was difficult to ultimately determine it was there initially. The fact that we have found it and are researching it doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't illusive.

As an analogy I would say Big Foot is illusive (should he exist) and if one is ever positively identified or found does not mean he is no longer illusive. Persol's continued harping on such mute points is the reason I am withdrawing from responding to him, not that I have no responses, he simply refuses to accept any response given or further questions those resposnes.

Please look back over this thread to see what I am saying.

He seems to think if he continues to repeat the sames charges over and over they will somehow become validated.

Originally posted by malkiri
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about all this stuff, so I'm not challenging any of the basics of this argument.

That being said...

Persol presents a statement, right or wrong, about dynamic energy. MacM, your reply doesn't mention dynamic energy, instead asserting that an accelerator is unable to reach a particular level of energy density. You say you haven't related this energy density term to energy being dynamic. If not, then what relevance did citing that number have?

ANS:I thought that was clear from the string. I initially used two adjectives in describing the CC. "Energetic" and "Dynamic". I gave example of both descriptors.

Persol's arguement is nothing but a distraction. The CC is both yet he tries to link the two adjectives as one description. I'm not sure if I am getting my point across, so let me expound a bit.

I selected the term "Dynamic" for my own description of what Dr. Wheeler (perhaps one of the top 3 physicists in the world) had referred to as being "a seething energy foam". If you see my word usage somehow inappropriate or misleading, then I accept your right to your view. But for me at least it is a proper adjective and I am tired of argueing such friviolous BS with Persol in his effort to present some form of challenge to my posts.

Further Dr. Wheeler has stated an energy density of 10E105 ergs.cm^3 (others have gone as high as 10E138 ergs/cm^3.

If you convert that density by E=mc^2 into an equivelent mass you get 10 Billion Billion times all the mass known to exist in our observable universe, per cm^3. That is far beyond energy densities found anywhereelse in nature or even approached by mankind. Regardless of Persol's effort to say it is nothing exceptional.

Using the word "and" doesn't make this any stronger evidence. If seething foam is a necessary and sufficient description of dynamic energy, then never mind this paragraph. But if not, as it seems from Persol's argument about the water (which, if it isn't correct, you don't substantially refute), then you haven't yet given any reason to believe the CC is filled with dynamic energy.

ANS: The reason I emphasized the "and " is because Persol's attempt to link my two dedcriptive adjectives as one and then claim I don't know what I am talking about because energy density has nothing to do with being energetic or dynamic and vice versa.

I acknowledge that point, they don't, nor were they linked in the fashion he tries to claim but the CC has both qualities. Neither quality caused the other. That is and was understood. It is simply another red herring by Persol to create doubt and slander.

About the illusive stuff (should this be "elusive"?)...the only definition for 'illusive' I've seen so far is 'difficult to access.' Is this correct?[]quote]

ANS: I am not a linquist but from my lay view "Yes" but it would also include "Hard to find". The CC was hard to find or detect.

Refusing outright to provide the support Persol is asking for (that is, the '3 or 4 things') doesn't make your argument seem more plausible. You've seemed rather evasive about many things throughout this thread. It may be a lack of understanding on my part, but I suspect not in many cases.

ANS: If that is your view I regret that but I still think I have spent enough time argueing over mute fabricated points with him to stop chasing in circles for what is clearly a fruitless endeavor.
A quick review of web sites will provide you with the answer and I have no further use to try and converse with someone that has nothing in mind but to argue about anything I post.

There are approximately 2,000 hits when you search Chiral Condensate. At least 75% if not 85% all deal with different aspects of high energy collisions. So it is the primary area of research. But their are many other topics and issues linked to the CC research and theories. I have mentioned only a few of those as I have stated there are many others.

But because of Persol's conduct and the nature of his posts it is a complete waste of time for me to contiue to feed him infomation. He or anyone else can attain for themselves.

For example above he states for perhaps the 3rd time that I have not shown that "Dark Energy" is related to the CC. I posted a topic on Dark Energy. It came from a search of CC and I was link to it. But since the sub-topic didn't refer specifically to the CC in its text he wants to argue I am misrepresenting matters.

Here is an example of what the arguement seems to be. An example follows.

**************************************************
III. Oral presentations


L. R.W. Abramo (USP, Brazil)

Title: Gravitational backreaction and screening of the cosmological constant

Abstract: One of the main advantages of an early phase of accelerated expansion (or inflation) is that it explains, through quantum mechanical particle production, the origin and the pattern of primordial fluctuations that is observed today in the cosmic microwave background radiation and in the power spectrum of galaxies.

One of the implications of quantum-mechanical particle production is that the created inhomogeneities have an effect on the background in which they are produced. Since gravity is always an attractive interaction, gravitational backreaction acts towards slowing down the accelerated expansion (and thus screening the vacuum energy that fuels that expansion.)

We review the concrete cases where gravitational backreaction effects have been calculated, and present a simple argument showing that, even if a one-loop calculation fails to show a secular (growing) effect, higher-order corrections will necessarily include secular terms which become non-perturbatively large if inflation lasts long enough.
*************************************************

Note that the article (found under Chiral Condensate) doesn't refer to the Chiral Condensate. Nor does it mention "Dark Energy". It does refer to Expansion of the universe (Dark Energy)and gravity and it refers to the "Vacuum". Perhaps as many as 90% of the hits you will get if you search Chiral Condensate will also mention the "Vacuum".

Likewise there are the topics of Casmir Effect, ZPE, etc. all found in the general classification of Chiral Condensate but they may or may not speficically refer to it by that name in their text.

The simple truth is they are all related and his arguement that they are not, is not merely misleading, it is false and may at best be based on a technicality, not from a physics view point but from a linguinstics view point.

I have better things to do than argue symantics and to argue symantics aren't symantics.

I have quoted the researcher verbatum when describing the Chiral Condensate "It appears to be Super Solid in a form we do not yet understand". Yet Persol has made and continues to make light of that statement and challenges me to prove there is any such thing. And claims such description is nonsense.

All the while he disregards that it was not my impression and choice of words, it was the researchers. I have no obligation to explain their meaning and whatever definition he chooses to use is his peragotive but whatever he has to say about the CC means far less to me than what I have read the experts to say.

His response is that I don't understand, that I am ignorant, etc.

Well I won't even bother to defend against such tripe but only point out that I do read english and I have transcribed vertabutm the researchers description of what the CC is.

So at this juncture I cease to play his stupid word game and leave it up to the readership to decide for themselves if I have met my burden here.

While making your decision, please ask Persol why he ignored Albert Einstien's own words regarding an ether and why based on Einstiens view I should be labled in the fashion he has attempted to do because I posted a topic about ether.?

It does seem to me this issue is far more germain than the personalized interpretation of the meaning of "Illusive".

I hope this satisfies your inquiry, if not please clarify.

Thank you.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[Canute]

For goodness sake Mac - he quietly suggested an improvement to your spelling, he didn't gloat over it. The word 'illusive' is related to 'illusory'. If we have found a CC (or a bigfoot) then it is no longer 'illusive', it is real. You meant 'elusive', and you should thank him for pointing that out.

There's nothing 'personalized' about it, as you suggest, and on SciUK personalised should have an s not a z.

 

[MacM]

Thaks

Canute,

Thanks for the heads up on spelling. Illusive is infact incorrect. I'll try to remember that.

If that has been his point he should have said so and not wasted everybodies time. If he thinks by doing that he somehow is damaging my crediability then I should go back over his posts and do likewise, since I did note several miss-spellings but didn't lower myself to attacking him on them.

I've even seen Canute miss a few.

Thanks again.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

edited for spelling - Its a pun Canute

 

[Persol]

Once again, my questions stand. You claim that it parts of it support your view. I have noted that you either misintreppreted those parts (universal frame, universe expansion, etc), or give it more credit then it's worth (dynamic energy).

My questions still stand, even if you don't feel like answering it.

As for your short abstract being listed under chiral condensate... a link would do. Only 1 session at that conference was concerning the chiral condensate. Unfortunately, the speech you listed wasn't it. And since you'll probably refuse to provide the link: http://www.fisica.ufjf.br/workshop/Program-OPC.htm

P.S - If you feel like telling me why it is elusive instead, feel free.

 

[Canute]

Re: Thaks

Originally posted by MacM
Canute,

Thanks for the heads up on spelling. Illusive is infact incorrect. I'll try to remember that.

Good.

If that has been his point he should have said so and not wasted everybodies time. [/B]

He did say so. It was you who decided to waste time on it. It wasn't his main point, it was an observational aside. You chose rather insanely to focus on it rather than address his real points, as is your usual practice.

If he thinks by doing that he somehow is damaging my crediability then I should go back over his posts and do likewise, since I did note several miss-spellings but didn't lower myself to attacking him on them.[/B]

What on earth makes you suppose he thinks that?

I've even seen Canute miss a few. [/B]

More than a few. And when they are pointed out I learn something.

edited for spelling - Its a pun Canute [/B]

Hoho indeed. You're the maddest person I've ever talked to Mac, and your paranoia needs treatment. This makes it almost fun to talk to you, there is never a dull moment. However I can do without it, and intend to do so from now on.

 

[Persol]

Your spelling has nothing to do with it, and I was not attempting to damage your image through spelling. That has nothing to do with the conversation (unless you are talking about relavists )

P.S. - Still waiting for a response to my questions

 

[MacM]

Funny

Persol,

(unless you are talking about relavists )

That is funny. Memory like an elephant. On the rest, just hold your pants on. I have solicited some professional ammo that I will be sinking your boat with.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[leeaus]

Not sure if this will be appreciated but believe the first dimension to be the sphere. The idea of length being a first dimension seems to be contradicted by its lack of difference from width and breadth. Like how do you state which of the three is the first dimension. If the sphere is the first dimension, the three dimensions are finite as you can’t have a sphere with an infinite radius can you. That sort of changes perceptions of what space actually is as the usual consideration is of an infinite space. What do you reckon

leeaus

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by leeaus
Not sure if this will be appreciated but believe the first dimension to be the sphere. The idea of length being a first dimension seems to be contradicted by its lack of difference from width and breadth. Like how do you state which of the three is the first dimension. If the sphere is the first dimension, the three dimensions are finite as you can’t have a sphere with an infinite radius can you. That sort of changes perceptions of what space actually is as the usual consideration is of an infinite space. What do you reckon

leeaus

I take the sphere to be a metaphor, a topographical way of imagining a fourth (or first) spatial dimension. But I agree 100% that the dimension which this metaphorical sphere represents is real and more fundamental than the other three. I'd be interested to know how you reached this conclusion?

 

[leeaus]

Canute Hello

The conclusion was reached with a realization that infinite length is an impossibility if it is divided by breath and width. Therefore the three dimensions are finite and a finite three dimensions produces the shape of the sphere.
Once you get to there it is pretty straight forward that the first dimension would be the sphere, particularly as length is indiscernible from width and breadth. Three identical dimensions being the first dimension is pretty much a contradiction of terms would you not say but the conclusion pretty much comes from the fact that the sections of a divided length must be sub infinite. Therefore length its self must be sub infinite as the sub infinite plus the sub infinite cannot be infinite. If you would like a link to my web page about this I can post it. It is anti mathematics so your choice on that.

Leeaus

 

[MacM]

Contact

Leeaus,

Please contact me at lmccoin@elp.rr.com.

Thanks