infinite, eternal universe

North,

Somewhere above Skarp said "One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist". You objected and now Skarp is challenging your objection.

Nothing wrong with any of this.

But.

Is is clear to you what he means with those words? It isn't to me. Because he is a member of CONIE it is not impossible that one or more key words in his statement have "non standard" meanings. I would ask for some definitions ... (and be surprised as hell if he provides them).

Procede with caution,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />by the way your above statement is ridiculous.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Ridiculous" is a type of <i>ad hominem</i> remark. We don't allow those on this MB. Please say what is wrong with the statement (even if it is obvious to you) rather than characterizing it. Once you anger another party, teaching, learning, and reasoned discussion cease. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Jan

Don't think so, but it depends on what you define as matter. To me, matter represents all substances and forms in the Universe. Existence without substance, and thus without properties, is not a viable concept. Anyone?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Got to head off for work here shortly, but as you said {it depends on what is defined as matter}. Matter to me is the localization of the foci of photons. If for instance - these foci that make up matter become free ranging - no matter can be observed. If anything is fundamental to Existence - It is a photon, and a photon is not matter. A photon is a geometric representation of Non-Existence, and they can't be a representation of matter lest they become localized. I.E In some sort of orbital wherein there is resistance to being moved through self interaction.
___________________________________________________________________

ANS: yes but essence of photon's existence is reactions with matter,without which photons would not become.light is a form of energy.

___________________________________________________________________

Hey north - Wheres my example of anything, and I do mean anything without a one being common to it?
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: what i meant was this, sure a circle is common to all but is not the most common,how many circles are there compared to other shapes no-where near as many and actually you could look at life as a Venn Diagram where shapes are superimposed on top of one another it gives a clearer picture of the shapes involved.

<i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />North,

Somewhere above Skarp said "One will suffice if one is common to all that Exist". You objected and now Skarp is challenging your objection.

Nothing wrong with any of this.
____________________________________________________________________

Larry

true, but given the circumstances i felt one thing at a time!!

_____________________________________________________________________

But.

Is is clear to you what he means with those words? It isn't to me. Because he is a member of CONIE it is not impossible that one or more key words in his statement have "non standard" meanings. I would ask for some definitions ... (and be surprised as hell if he provides them).

Procede with caution,
LB
____________________________________________________________________

Larry

i'm sure it will come to that eventually!!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />

<i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />by the way your above statement is ridiculous.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Ridiculous" is a type of <i>ad hominem</i> remark. We don't allow those on this MB. Please say what is wrong with the statement (even if it is obvious to you) rather than characterizing it. Once you anger another party, teaching, learning, and reasoned discussion cease. -|Tom|-
___________________________________________________________________

Tom

fair enough.

north

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />If his statement is logical, so is mine. Fact is both are assumptions without support.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your statement stands alone as an assumption without support, just as you say. However, I backed mine up with a set of logical syllogisms, which you tried to critique below. These might or might not contain an error. But that is a different issue from your claim here that my statement is "without support". I presented the logical support for my statement. You presented nothing to support your statement. So your claim that our statements are on equal footing is incorrect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: If space has a boundary, then the boundary must separate space from non-space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> A little sketchy here but still no problem.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: (A boundary that separated space from other space would not be a "boundary to space", by definition.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Whoa! Stop the presses! Where dat new space come from! I thought we were talking about how the boundry must seperate space from non-space, and then out of nowhere - poof! we have a boundry that seperated space from other space? The logical train of thought just crashed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The statement in parentheses is not separate from my preceding statement. It was intended to explain the reason for the preceding statement. Because you already accept the preceding statement, "if space has a boundary, then the boundary must separate space from non-space", you don't need the clarification in parentheses, which you apparently misunderstood. (It was intended to have the same meaning as the statement you agree with.) So just drop the parenthetical statement and the rest of the argument stands as presented.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Therefore, the premise that "space has a boundary" is excluded. And that proves that space has no boundary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Say what?! Where dat come from? How can you come to this conclusion when you crash half way to it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Now that the "crash" has been cleared away, do you accept the conclusion? Or do you have some other objection? If the latter, you will now have to reverse your stated acceptance of all steps in my argument.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If anything is fundamental to Existence - It is a photon, and a photon is not matter. A photon is a geometric representation of Non-Existence, and they can't be a representation of matter lest they become localized. I.E In some sort of orbital wherein there is resistance to being moved through self interaction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This gives an excellent insight into your thinking. You know enough quantum mechanics to get into logical difficulty (something that is inherent in modern QM, not something that is your doing).

MM takes all this murky mess created by QM and makes logical sense of it. In doing so, perhaps MM's greatest contribution is eliminating the logical contradiction in QM, which would prove that ours is an artificially generated reality if it were allowed to stand. (QM: "There is no deep reality to the world around us.")

For starters, in MM, light is a pure wave, not a dual entity, because it has all wave properties and no essential particle properties. It does have two apparent particle properties, but both of those have wave interpretations too. So MM opts for the pure wave interpretation.

But a wave requires a medium to wave, and mediums are made of smaller particles. MM calls that medium "elysium", and the particles that compose it "elysons". So light is ultimately a type of "matter" or "substance" (depending on definitions), which gets rid of the spookiness and vaguery in QM that was affecting your thinking.

Finally, photons don't have "orbitals" (you are probably thinking of "virtual photons", which have no properties in common with real photons), and MM gives a completely different (and much simpler) meaning to "inertia" than the type of "resistance to being moved" that you cited. If you would like to get past all this murkiness, I recommend a read of MM in <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, available through this web site. -|Tom|-