Broken Circle

natyd,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>rite 1st time i ave repyled 2 ne thing b4, but i ave read most of wots been said, u r all basin things on human knowledge which are equations n ave unknowns in them, wot r u basing ur knoledge on?? wot we call "facts", they mite just be assumptions, i am only 14 but i ave a lot of noledge on real things n i aint no how, but we mite be just basing all our thinking on sumthing that mite be rong, it mite just be coincidence, that things work out, or not, but we dnt no that either, knolege is only an assumption or based on things that have fallen in 2 places conviently, its jus sumthing i ave been thinkin bout, i aint no much equations n stuff but i ave a lot of common sense

NaTaN</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Actually, you seem to be very astute. Sometimes we may appear to say things that seem more confident than we actually are. We refer to "facts", "laws", etc, but actually "most" of us recognize that what we are saying is assumptions which describe the best explanations as of the time of writing and that scientific understanding changes all the time.

Nothing in science has been "Proven", there are "NO" laws. There is only repeatability, predictions and logic to express our understanding of what we see.

Welcome.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />

Call it a miracle if you want but it could actually be how Nature really works. What if the state of "nothing" is a condition for something to come into existence? Once there is something, the condition of "nothing" can no longer be achieved, so it becomes an irreversible process.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

We all know something cannot come from nothing. We are *****ed up by the shape of the "0". To our mind it means nothing....zero....zip. In history, the zero was used as a placeholder by accountants who used to poke a sharp stick into clay to make a "zero" or point. When you realize the hole in the clay or "0" is an expanded point.....an infinitely small point.....you may realize that the whole of universe can be represented by that one infinately small point. Then it occurs to you that "0" is actually all there is, in one small point, not nothing. I realized this some time ago and called it the Anu, which is shaped like a heart-shaped torus. This Anu is what space does.....spirals......and space is jam-packed with these spiraling vortexes.......and these vortexes are logarithmically packed (harmonic waves) inside even larger toroidal vortexes within a finite vortex called "our universe" which is moving across the surface of an even larger Megaverse called the Toroidal Universe which looks and behaves exactly like the smallest Anu unit. And this Toroidal Universe has a finite cycle but it cycles infinately, being a 4 dimensional structure at every level from the minute to the largest.

The Toroidal Universe www.rgrace.org/100/131toroiduni.html
The Anu www.rgrace.org/100/134anuqa.html

Meta

Meta,

You are making sweeping statements as though these links are some new evidence. They are theories and I don't see much in the way of research data or evidence to support them.

For those that know me, I recognize that I am speaking of myself as well.

However as far as Creation ex nihilo, I find you outright rejection of interest in that you must replace it with a better view.

Mine is Creation ex nihilo. N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) (the lastest revison of the origin formula); where "N" is "Nothingness",

---

&gt; is bifurcating into, +/- "s" or equal but opposite "Somethings". this simple expression shows that Creation ex nihilo can indeed occur without violating conservation. How that can happen is another matter. Mathematically it can.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Im making sweeping statements because Ive made some sweeping studies in 40,000 books, all bibles, innumerable internet documents and technical documents.

Your lack of the same amount of study and contemplation is no excuse to impy that this idea is incorrect.

&lt;&lt; Mine is Creation ex nihilo. N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) (the lastest revison of the origin formula); where "N" is "Nothingness",

---

&gt; is bifurcating into, +/- "s" or equal but opposite "Somethings". this simple expression shows that Creation ex nihilo can indeed occur without violating conservation. How that can happen is another matter. Mathematically it can. &gt;&gt;

What your ex nihilo statement, above says, is that no.thing or the 0 generated the 1 which bi.furcated into 2 and you end there without taking it to 3 primaries and 4 elements. The argument is incomplete in that way.

Heres how it can happen. 0 is "1" vortex of space which produced an equal vortex of space. These "2" vortexes, rotating the same way, are grating against each other but they are just "1" pair. This is traditionally called "God/Satan". The 2nd vortex is antigone or antagonist. This is the first cooper pair. This is also 0 dimension...0=2. The next 2nd dimension=4 will rotate these 2 at 90 degrees, the 3rd dimension=6 will use 6 and the 4th dimension=8 will use 8.....all twice as many as we believe we see, in reality.......1/2 is always hidden so our electron measurments appear to rotate twice to return to its start again, called 1/2 spin.

So when you talk of dimension 0,1,2,3,4 you should think 0,2,4,6,8.

But lets keep it the simple 0,1,2,3,4: In this Toroidal Universe all levels from 0,1,2,3 and 4 with 4=0, are all toroidal with an inside and an outside upon a finite shape which cycles infinately, all of which solves all of the questions science may ask.

So we ask, "Whats outside the outside" The correct answer is, "The inside is outside of the outside"
We ask, "Is the universe flat, positive or negative curvature....it is all three somewhere upon the torus.
We ask, "Is the universe infinite or finite".....it is both because there are no infinities but the torus has a cyclic because space is curved and any curve, no matter how slight, will always curve back upon itself. This curve is the surface of the Toroidal Universe, and the torus cycles infinately.

And I am sure because I have seen all your other arguments and concluded, all of them fall short.

Meta
MetPhys@aol.com
rgrace@rgrace.org

Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Im making sweeping statements because Ive made some sweeping studies in 40,000 books, all bibles, innumerable internet documents and technical documents.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: I'm not prone to join pis_ing contests but I will favor you with a bit of wisdom. You may or may not choose to absorb it.

1 - You may or may not be well read. Your reading may or may not be 40,000 in depth. I personally have my doubts. 40,000 doucments at the rate of 1 per day would mean you are 116 years old, assuming you started reading serious science when you were 6 in 1,894 AD.

Of course you could do the same amount of reading by reading 10 documents everyday for 11 years but I do think you have had a period of childhood, adulthood involving a job, perhaps a family and some days of relaxation and maybe a few sick days. So I don't buy your 40,000 plus claim.

2 - More important than ones volume of reading is what he reads. I am less than impressed with any number of Bibles and Internet Documents can be good but as I pointed out above, the ones you posted don't appear to be mainstream science. That doesn't automatically make them invalid but it is cause to take them with a grain of salt until more is known or understood about their accuracy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Your lack of the same amount of study and contemplation is no excuse to impy that this idea is incorrect.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: You are right. I don't claim to have read 40,000 on point documents at the forefront of science. That is because I don't choose to exagerate my status. I will say however, I am reasonably confident you have absolutely no knowledge about my education, reading habits, experience or knowledge.

So your personal attack is left for what it is "Blow Pie".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>And I am sure because I have seen all your other arguments and concluded, all of them fall short.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I'll be sure to keep that in mind and if I am confused about something and need a straight answer, I know just where to find it - right? Bull Sh_t.

You are the most egotistical member I have seen here yet. You don't know a damn thing about me and you certainly haven't read "All my arguements". And if you found "All of them fall short". Then you stand alone since many of my arguements have prevailed in debates with many many others that frankly appear to be far more educated, knowledgable and considerate of alternative ideas than you seem to portray.

Where do you get the nonsensical idea that your view is correct and any that disagree are wrong. Boy have you got a lot to learn about science.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />ANS: I'm not prone to join pis_ing contests but I will favor you with a bit of wisdom. You may or may not choose to absorb it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Note that each of "Meta's" posts have been of the same immature, antagonistic type. The poster is a kid or a troll. Either way, don't let him/her rile you. If you see somehting mentioned that allows you to offer a bit of wisdom, and feel inclined to bestow it, go right ahead. Otherwise, I recommend ignoring the posts. This individual is presently unable to learn, so you will just frustrate yourself taking the posts at face value.

If he/she gets too annoying, I'll ask the webmaster to insist on courtesy or cancelation of posting privileges.

I'm sure it is purely a coincidence that Meta joined us just days after our previous problem poster left us. [] -|Tom|-