infinite, eternal universe

Skarp

your idea seems to based on the assumtion that space, with no discernible substance,is pure or absolute nothing.this far from the truth,in reality and it has been shown experimentally, that in fact there is substance there. "chiral condensate" for example.

now define "nothing".

also, you use the photon as part of your arguement, when it is dependent on the existence of matter to even become, how could you not realize this?to me you have not critized your own theory very well.it seems to me that you came up with an idea/theory and made no effort yourself to see whether it actually is feasible.

take this as you will, but part of process is trying disprove your own theory, this is how you find flaws in your theory.

your pictures are meaningless to me,one is black square the other,black square with a circle in the middle,where is this in reality?

OK Skarp, That's actually pretty funny. On several levels. My complimentes to you.

But.

It would be a little more useful (for the purposes of communication and transfer of understanding) if you would define the SENTENCE rather than each individual word.

===

But of course, that's where you can't go.




Bummer,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your idea seems to based on the assumtion that space, with no discernible substance,is pure or absolute nothing.this far from the truth<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I make no such assumption. Space is represented and each representation is a conceptual geometric embodiment. I.E Space has parts. You know the old saying? Parts is parts. It is the parts however that are made of absolutely nothing.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">also, you use the photon as part of your arguement, when it is dependent on the existence of matter to even become<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I beg to differ here with the exact opposite of what you said. That matter is dependent on the existence of photons. Matter would be the localization of photons, and space is the extention of those photons give or take the number of photons free ranging.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your pictures are meaningless to me,one is black square the other,black square with a circle in the middle,where is this in reality?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> This is to be expected because I see no willed cognition or your part. You can't play a baseball game without a bat. Your post show this clearly in that I have to spent most of my time clearing up misinterpretations. To this I say - Read more carefully to achieve better understanding. I'm not saying this is easy. It's difficult for me too. I've been indoctrinated for over 40 years that the universe is physical only to find it may be entirely conceptual. This is like being right handed for every task, and suddenly using your left hand for everything the right used to do. I can only say I'm getting better at it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">take this as you will, but part of process is trying disprove your own theory, this is how you find flaws in your theory.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Take this for what it is worth - There is no greater critic of my ideas than me, myself, and I.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would be a little more useful (for the purposes of communication and transfer of understanding) if you would define the SENTENCE rather than each individual word.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What do you want me to do? Define each word I used to defined each word? I can only go so far. As I said to Tom - I will not resort to spoon feeding. At some point it is up to you to take the reigns wherein you may or may not say - 6. How could I have been so stupid? Or.......This is not so because.......blah blah blah.

You only show me indecision. I.E Show me your stuff to be followed by I don't want to see your stuff. Well - which is it so I can know whether I'm wasting my time or not?

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">your idea seems to based on the assumtion that space, with no discernible substance,is pure or absolute nothing.this far from the truth<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I make no such assumption. Space is represented and each representation is a conceptual geometric embodiment. I.E Space has parts. You know the old saying? Parts is parts. It is the parts however that are made of absolutely nothing.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: again "chiral condensate".

____________________________________________________________________

also, you use the photon as part of your arguement, when it is dependent on the existence of matter to even become<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I beg to differ here with the exact opposite of what you said. That matter is dependent on the existence of photons.
____________________________________________________________________

ANS: why and how?

lets just start there, rest later.

by the way,i ask again, define nothing.

<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 />

It would be a little more useful (for the purposes of communication and transfer of understanding) if you would define the SENTENCE rather than each individual word.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What do you want me to do? Define each word I used to defined each word? I can only go so far. As I said to Tom - I will not resort to spoon feeding. At some point it is up to you to take the reigns wherein you may or may not say - 6. How could I have been so stupid? Or.......This is not so because.......blah blah blah.
_____________________________________________________________________

ANS: this is poor attitude skarp,either you have an interest in discussing your opinions(up to now that is all it is,to me you are afraid of depth)or you want to live in your own world.then, there is where you will stay,i find no point in this. i have yet to meet anyone that has come forth with a theory that has not wanted to discuss it,in a clear and precise manner,this reluctance on your part to define what is asked is not a strength it is a weakness to you and your theory. and quite frankly it is an imaturity on your part.

the ball is in your court,do you have the courage or not?

by the way all of us want you to DEFINE what we ask, that is the basis of any discussion, how else can we FULLY UNDERSTAND what you mean and hold an informed and meaningful discussion. opinions without substance are meaningless to all.