Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

The word scale has more than one meaning. You are using other meanings that aren't appropriate to this discussion.

This is a physics discussion about the scale (size) of things - things that are big on the one hand and small on the other hand. Hmmm, it might help to think of scale in terms of mass, rather than in terms of size. One of your misuses of the word scale is to treat it as a synonym for coordinate axis. It can be, but in this context it is not wise to do this because it leads straight to the kind of confusion you are exhibiting.

===

And did you notice that I said some things are physical, other things are conceptual. I intentionally avoided the use of the word real.

Are conceptual things real? (For that matter, are physical things real? I hope you agree that they are.) Conceptual things are definitely not physical, but the issue of reality for conceptual things is not so clear cut.

Hi Larry, I would agree that you do have a different definition of SCALE then I do. Explain to me how your concept of scale can be an infinity?

I have to take off for a while, I would like to take a look at Meta Model concept of Scales, Multiple Scales, and Infinity. There needs to be a Universal Base line Scale Index, it could start with Base Scale, including visible universe and first layer of Atomic Level at C, Base + 1 = Graviton Scale at speeds of G...with Subscales -1, etc. Problem is that most existing models do not even think there are scales existing above this one, that speeds of motion can exceed C, that frequencies can exist above or below C, and they have no clue as to why the Universe is in extreme motion.

I'm willing to give it a try. One of the first things you'll need to learn is to use the words coordinate axis instead of scale, unless you are explicitly repering to size. Otherwise we would end up talking about the scale scale instead of the scale coordinate axis.

===

Let me know when you are ready and we will see what we can see. You might want to re-read some of the chapters in <i>Dark Matter ...</i> while you are away, to refresh your memory on some of the basics related to MM.

And you need to find a good basic physics text book (Haliday and Resnick or Sears and Zemanski come to mind) and convince yourself that frequencies above or below c actually cannot exist.

LB

Alright Larry, I am open to working with you to "see what we can see." I have a lot on my plate right now, but hopefully after several projects are complete I will have more time. So, for now if you can post links to any 'specific references/information' that you would like for me to read that would be much appreciated.

I have thought about your perspective regarding scale as a concept. I have concluded that in theory a scale can go on and on as a replicated pattern and could indeed approach an infinity. The problem is that such an iteration in reality cannot exist, so what we really are talking about in scales is a particular range within a scale. I will address this later in next post with some ideas for describing a range with in scales.

Regarding frequencies, the light spectrum that we presently acknowledge is part of a light spectrum scale. Therefore, it too is only one of many ranges that are linked to the scale of motion. The faster the speed, the higher the frequency of rotation, signal, wave torsion forces, amplitude, etc. So, I predict that the graviton no doubt has an extremely higher frequency then light [cascade collapsing into this range of frequencies/link with next higher range of frequencies/shell surrounding this range/larger mass scale/next light spectrum range up]. The spin rate would be off the richter scale....I have to go pick up some building materials. Later, John

As far as reference and information sources are concerned, the books I mentioned above should be all we need.

I suppose a good dictionary would be useful, as well.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think we need to avoid the use of the word "scale". It has so many different meanings, even in the limited context of talking about the size of things, that it will lead to much confusion.

I suggest we use the word "size" instead. When one of the meanings other than size is intended, we will just have to use a different word or words, or perhaps an entire sentence, instead.