Broken Circle

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

If you look at a page with a magnifying glass with the light set at a lower frequency, you will see some letters scattered over the page. The ones near the center (your ordinate) are large. The ones near the edges are becoming smaller. Some letters are bright others are more dim. The bright letters are those that are at rest relative to you. The dimmer they are the higher their relative velocity to you. The ones you don't see are beyond your "Qualitative Domain Limit" (v=>c). Letters that are not magnified are those beyond your"Quantitative Domain Limit".

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

With the intention of being fair...

I've never said that TVF's theory is inconsistent. IMHO it is incomplete and metaphysical due to several axioms missing, which in TVF's view can be derived via logical analysis. However;

The above statement from Mac deals solely with metaphysics. The is no formal backing of the statements made (not shown here anyway). In other words, these are phenomenological interpretation lacking a solid foundation, either logical or physical. TVF avoids phenomenological interpretations in a "canning" way by claiming things like the infinite and the graviton, which are not subject to such interpretation. In this way, he blocks any challenge by experiment but obviously by doing that he enters the sphere of metaphysics.

In conclusion, both Mac and TVF make statements dealing with metaphysics. Mac's theory however can be put to test, whereas TVF's cannot (no way to test the universe for infinite proporties).

TVF is smart and noted before that any theory that is put to test, sooner or later collapses. Having understood that well, which is a remarkable achievement in itself to understand it thoroughly, he deviced a theory which cannot be verified experimentally but nevertheless he claims to be consistent(I have my doubts about that but let's take it for granted for now). However, consistency does not imply completness, TVF is smart enough to know that, he won't say that to you so I assume the task of enlighting you: there is no way to check a consistent theory for completness when references to infinity are made. Simple.

Also, the Sweedish know that well and such theories gain no recognition. In this life you win some (experimentally bullet proof) and you lose some (recognition). or else, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Patrick,

Let's say that it took 1erg to reduce the temperature on one ball and 1 erg to increase the temperature on the other. Since the bucket, balls and water are the only "something" then the energy to do this would have had to come from the bucket or water or balls, right? Okay, those 2 ergs are now being stored in the balls and the balls now owe the bucket 2 ergs of energy. Where did the 2 ergs come from? They were "EXTRACTED" from the bucket, right? Where will the 2 ergs go when they were released? Back to the bucket, right?
Net is that "nothing" happened which is your case and point, right?
Wrong! The bucket, balls, and water still exists and in exactly the way it was to begin with. I think that is a good example of Entropy, or is it?[unquote]


Ans: Somewhere along the line you missed some of my post. No energy was taken from the bucket. I pointed out that the bucket, the water and the ball bearings were already a condensed form of energy.

Heating one ball and cooling the other was only an analogy to show how +/- energy can come from nothing. The illustration was not taking energy from one bearing and putting it in the other.

It was "Creating" (+n) from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> by also "Creating" (-n) at the same time from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>. The energy so created was applied to the ball bearings in the form of heat (temperature) to show that that energy = <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>. "Created" from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle> and returning to <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>.

I think the "boundary" of this topic has be reached.

So I decided to make another post in order to breach it.

It was definetively a boundary because I couldn't read anything below the last post.

Let's keep posting until we get to the limit of this web site. I'm sure, TVF will get a warning by his host server when the limit is closing, something like "You are approaching your limit".

If course, I'm risking this message will never show up because when the boundary is reached and an attempt to breach it is made, things may get lost.

If you can read this message it means we haven't reached the physical boundary, although I think the mental one has been reached.

Obviously, should we have breached the mental bounary, this place would've been flooded by Sweedish nationals. LOL

JoeW,

I COULD READ The first p...............<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Patrick]
... {E=mc^2}={m=E/c^2}
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Hmmm. You say this as if there is something non-trivial about it.

Regards,
LB

Patrick,

Would you agree that to exist as we understand our existance, we require time, space and energy? [unquote]

Your above reply left out an important final sentenance to leave room to argue over mute points.

Would you agree that to exist as we understand our existance, we require time, space and energy? This question recognizes that we may not and need not agree on what those enities are. [unquote]

Ans:This was the full statement. As you know or should I think, I hold that space (Dimension) is indeed a mere function of energy. That is the foundation of the UniKEF view. That view has been around for 50 years. I don't know for a fact but my suspcions are that is longer than you are old, so don't start trying to teach me my own views.<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle>

If I were now to agree that space is a function of energy, would you then think my future use of the concept was taken from you?