E=mc2

[St Germain]

Is this equation still considered valid, what proof do we have that it works and is valid?

[Epsilon=One]

Is this equation still considered valid, what proof do we have that it works and is valid?

All equations of GR have only limited validity within narrowly defined, contrived parameters. GR does not address the problem of how light (energy) becomes mass (exhibits the properties of mass). These problems Einstein well understood . . . and Kip Thorne would like to not think about.

Better: The elliptical constant: epsilon = One, which underlies all observed phenomena . . . including number theory. Or, possibly, the Natural function: x^2 - x, which represents the soliton, which is observed in all Natural manifestations.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Somehow I didn't think that E=mc^2 was meant to describe How energy 'appeared' as mass.....nor did I think that it had been invalidated inasmuch as the results of Nuclear (bomb) Testing (least, what I was taught) said it worked quite well, based upon the yeilds.....

Personally I do not subscribe to the idea that energy Becomes mass, it is simply an appearance as mass....after all m=E/c^2....no 'mass' there......

[Epsilon=One]

Somehow I didn't think that E=mc^2 was meant to describe How energy 'appeared' as mass.....nor did I think that it had been invalidated inasmuch as the results of Nuclear (bomb) Testing (least, what I was taught) said it worked quite well, based upon the yeilds.....
As I understand E = mc^2, it is a popularization of GR.

GR is only applicable within narrow parameters and with very simple problems of Reality.

…I do not subscribe to the idea that energy Becomes mass, it is simply an appearance as mass....after all m=E/c^2....no 'mass' there......

You are correct in a sense. Mass is a form of energy; and, it is derived from energy; however, because of its unique bonding (resonance) it is quite different from other forms of energy; such as, the four states of Light.

I don’t agree with “…m=E/c^2....no 'mass' there.....”

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV :)

Originally posted by Epsilon=One
(SNIP)I don’t agree with “…m=E/c^2....no 'mass' there.....”(SNoP)

Probably the Most interesting response I have ever heard from someone who, clearly! is such a good mathematician....really suprises me.....Sorta..... :)

[Epsilon=One]

Probably the Most interesting response I have ever heard from someone who, clearly! is such a good mathematician....really suprises me.....Sorta..... :)

Thought that statement would get your attention.

I do not believe the speed of light is other than something finite; as is "E.".

I believe that the limits of speed lie close to the dualities of Infinity . . . not Light.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV)

Thought that statement would get your attention.
It did, tells me a little of how your mind works...

I do not believe the speed of light is other than something finite; as is "E.".
Would agree as both arise from the 'Big Bang' or Start Point, hence both are properties of Delineated, and delinable, Space.

I believe that the limits of speed lie close to the dualities of Infinity . . . not Light.
Interesting thought, but Infinity cannot be a Duality, it too must be singular in nature, what appears to us, here-now, is simply an appearance, as Dr. Einstein Said, it is all simply 'an Illusion of light'...it is, physics proves that, but the purpose of whatever created it (God, The Truth, The Creator, for me/myself) seems to have the needed implication(s), for us, of solidity, time, and the Nature of the Finite.....seems we all need to learn something, ergo, we are Here....Now....Learning?

[Epsilon=One]

Would agree as both arise from the 'Big Bang' or Start Point, hence both are properties of Delineated, and delinable, Space.Well yes and no.

The Big Bang is ludicrous. Actually, there is no “Start Point.”
See: Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131).

The "Start Point," if there was one, could be said, heuristically, to be seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179) or the Unified Conxept. (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119)

Interesting thought, but Infinity cannot be a Duality, it too must be singular in nature…The Duality of Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) is an important concept of Pulsoid Theory.

Infinity as a singularity:
the locus of the infinite and infinitesimal
are congruent; and,
are often referred to as
the Duality of Infinity

…it is all simply 'an Illusion of light'.....seems we all need to learn something, ergo, we are Here....Now....Learning?The trick is to define the geometric structure of light (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=110).

See: http://www.2-CQ.com/Light1


You are quite correct about our purpose.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

O.K. but if Infinity isn't concievable, then how can it be something like the concievable singularity?

Thereafter, well, draw a circle, the inside represents the infinitesimal, the outside the Infinite, but Neither, are!

In the end, the only real responce is that it is God's thought(s)...nothing else works, nothing else qualifies, not a Piece of Subjective attestament that proves anything, not a Singular, nor collective, accumulation of material, that proves anything otherwise.....not even One.

So from there, we, if we cannot agree to, well, something, get no where, go no where, prove nothing....ever....


Personally, I prefer to acknowledge truth, and proceed from there, thereafter we can find things, answers, understandings, things that tell us All how all of this works, why it is here, and helps us to find our own Personal "Raison D'etre"....but that is me, you? well, I suspect we follow 'similar things' in these realms of mind, just from differing approachments, probably words, too.

leastways I seem to have some extra computer time, today.....

(Please, no offense intended, but, nothing else to do....even if I did have, I still enjoy good conversation, and exchange of thought[s], something which you appear to be [somewhat?] adept! at..... :) )

[Epsilon=One]

In the end, the only real responce is that it is God's thought(s)...nothing else works, nothing else qualifies, not a Piece of Subjective attestament that proves anything, not a Singular, nor collective, accumulation of material, that proves anything otherwise.....not even One.My creed is that god is not anthropic; therefore god can have no thoughts . . . NO design. God has no awareness that man exists. God can take no side in disputes or morality.

Personally, I prefer to acknowledge truth, and proceed from there, thereafter we can find things, answers, understandings, things that tell us All how all of this works, why it is here, and helps us to find our own Personal "Raison D'etre"....but that is me, you?I too am “aboard” with your reasoning, re: Truth.

well, I suspect we follow 'similar things' in these realms of mind, just from differing approachments, probably words, too.With time, I am sure we can reach agreement. Words are a difficult medium to use in reaching a total understanding.

(Please, no offense intended, but, nothing else to do....even if I did have, I still enjoy good conversation, and exchange of thought[s], something which you appear to be [somewhat?] adept! at..... :) )No offense taken. All I require is a response and an open mind. Both of which you have in abundance; and, so many others lack.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

........it belonged Here.......


My creed is that god is not anthropic; therefore god can have no thoughts . . . NO design. God has no awareness that man exists. God can take no side in disputes or morality.


We differ in that respect, to the best of my knowledge God is involved in Humanites affairs, through the Willing, thusly it Never appears as such, but, I can assure you, God knows your alive, God knows I am alive too, and all of the rest of Life.....God is evidently still working as we still have Life (force) giving/growing us Food!

As for design, well, separate the Wheat from the Chaff!

(if you look carefully, you too can see {self evident truth} that this place serves that purpose.....Really-Reeeeeally WELL!

But I still believe (as I, personally, haven't direct evidence of it) that E = mc^2 and that it works for the "limited range" as you have mentioned....

Nuclear Bombs, and their yields, the mass losses, those, and Nuclear reactors, the losses, and gains, available, as evidence, from them....too.

[Epsilon=One]

(if you look carefully, you too can see {self evident truth} that this place serves that purpose.....Really-Reeeeeally WELL!You are quite correct: “this place serves” a very high purpose in the search for Truth. Far better than academia with its very limited "academic freedom of expression"; and, stifling peer review.

Nuclear Bombs, and their yields, the mass losses, those, and Nuclear reactors, the losses, and gains, available, as evidence, from them....too.Without Pulsoid Theory’ (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128)s carefully completed, cyclic etiology as expressed in the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131) (ETR), no one has a clue, not even an alternative theory as to how “all that energy” got into an atom; or, what holds it there.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

You are quite correct: “this place serves” a very high purpose in the search for Truth. Far better than academia with its very limited "academic freedom of expression"; and, stifling peer review.

Uhmm, well, the "purposeful service" is one that is NOT within the 'Job Description' of Science, my opinion, it is in service to God, again My opinion/belief/knowledge/trust.....faith.


Without Pulsoid Theory’ (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=128)s carefully completed, cyclic etiology as expressed in the Equilibrium Theory of Reality (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=131) (ETR), no one has a clue, not even an alternative theory as to how “all that energy” got into an atom; or, what holds it there.

Uhmmm, how do you know? "No One" Knows? Are you calling me a "Nobody?" :D

Oh Yes, I haven't read too many of the 'linkings' inasmuch as ,you do use a terminology that, seemingly(?) you(?) have invented, ergo first I would need learn that, then, follow the Concepts, as expressed, in the Mathematical 'Language' which, forgive me, I haven't seemingly the Need of, from, my own, 'Personal Understanding' inasmuch as, it can be (to the Best of My knowledge) explained in English-Scientific 'Language' quite easily (sorta=length/time) using Current Terminology....no need for a New Language (Maybe one (1) or two (2) new{er} words) as to express 'Descriptors' of the reality, in it's wholeness, (oneness {1'ness}) across All Scales.

So......

[Epsilon=One]

My opinion/belief/knowledge/trust.....faith.The less of anything that requires a large amount of faith, the better for mankind.

A lofty purpose of science (or, of just “being”) should be to reduce faith to a minuscule.

… "No One" Knows? Are you calling me a "Nobody?"No, I am not calling you a “nobody.” I’m just including most everyone in the set of “no one.”

… you do use a terminology that, seemingly(?) you(?) have invented, ergo first I would need learn that, then, follow the Concepts, as expressed, in the Mathematical 'Language' which, forgive me, I haven't seemingly the Need of, from, my own, 'Personal Understanding' inasmuch as, it can be (to the Best of My knowledge) explained in English-Scientific 'Language' quite easily (sorta=length/time) using Current Terminology....no need for a New Language (Maybe one (1) or two (2) new{er} words) as to express 'Descriptors' of the reality, in it's wholeness, (oneness {1'ness}) across All Scales.Oh so quickly, one or two words turn into many.

Every effort is made to eliminate neologisms where they are not required.

Neologisms are used when a concept is new, which must be described rather precisely; or, the old word/words have too many different, erroneous, or comfusing (or all of the above) connotations. Much effortt is expended to clearly define the neologisms; often with links. Where I use unusual capitalization and italicization, it is because the word is being used in a consistent and precise manner. If there is doubt, please advise; every attempt will be made for clarification.

I cannot use the word “quark” because that usually means a fractional charge; so I use “Soloid,” which has a unit charge and is an attempt to connote soliton and 3D. The concept of “proto-atom” is more easily expressed as an “Ultron.” Gravity is a word that expresses several different phenomena that are inexplicable; thus I prefer to describe each phenomenon, somewhat descriptively, such as: Relative, Hierarchic Compression (the illusion of attraction); or, Confluent Congruence (entanglement), etc. Please ask, when in doubt, for clarification; a forum is no place where exhaustive detail can be included from the “get-go.”

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

12:51 PM 31/08/2005


The less of anything that requires a large amount of faith, the better for mankind.

Why?


A lofty purpose of science (or, of just “being”) should be to reduce faith to a minuscule.

Again, why.....and not meaning to be rude, but being Kinda Forward, (AKA BOLD!) is it because, YOU, personally, can't find, or muster, or maintain any?


No, I am not calling you a “nobody.” I’m just including most everyone in the set of “no one.”

I went back and fixed the emotive :D on that one, it was meant with a sense of Humor...just a little


Oh so quickly, one or two words turn into many.

Makes for better conversation. oooops wait....

.....on this (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=182) post alone, I can count at least eight (8) "New to me" terms


Every effort is made to eliminate neologisms where they are not required.

Neologisms are used when a concept is new, which must be described rather precisely; or, the old word/words have too many different, erroneous, or comfusing (or all of the above) connotations. Much effortt is expended to clearly define the neologisms; often with links. Where I use unusual capitalization and italicization, it is because the word is being used in a consistent and precise manner. If there is doubt, please advise; every attempt will be made for clarification.

I cannot use the word “quark” because that usually means a fractional charge; so I use “Soloid,” which has a unit charge and is an attempt to connote soliton and 3D. The concept of “proto-atom” is more easily expressed as an “Ultron.” Gravity is a word that expresses several different phenomena that are inexplicable; thus I prefer to describe each phenomenon, somewhat descriptively, such as: Relative, Hierarchic Compression (the illusion of attraction); or, Confluent Congruence (entanglement), etc. Please ask, when in doubt, for clarification; a forum is no place where exhaustive detail can be included from the “get-go.”

Well, personally I have found that the ONE description of Gravity, "Attraction to a Common Center" to be Perfect in it's simplicity, descriptive of the truth of Gravities self-evident activity, and find no other phenomenon(s), that need any explaination, outside of the proper explaination of just how gravity works....currently NOT known, to either, the General Public, or the Scientific community(ies), but some of which you find, herein, posted by, myself...

Note too, I have suggested a method of testing what I have said, it is not unknown to me that there are other 'scientifically inclined minds' on this planet (can feel some of them, too) so it is, sorta, well, makes me think when I 'sorta' know that those suggstions have been followed up on, the truth of it is known! as having been tested for! yet NO one! not a SOUL! on the face of the planet (who tried it) reports on the findings, here, to me.....confirmed it, they have! told me? of the confirmation? that they have found, No, they do nothing to validate me, in any way, shape, or form....what does that, tell you?

It is a bit like me having told people that; "G. Bush Knew of me, from the Beginning of His Presidency" He must have been told, he Needed to have been told! inasmuch as, what I can do, could have the Un-fortunate and un-intended result of affecting the Direction of the United States of America*, inasmuch as, I can feel him too, Hence he NEEDED to be told Right from the Beginning....so he has Known about me from Waaaaaaaay Back!

(So's as to ensure that ALL descisions made were HIS responsibility, NOT MINE! so's as to ensure that I didn't "Use my Power(s)" {my Gift From God} to serve my own, or others, "ends" as to be against, or for, the U.S...unjustly, cause I do have the "Right to speak" and to THINK, anything I would like? no! I have accepted that I MUST restrict myself! in my thinking/feeling! critically important! to ME!....good learning :) too)

*It has....just that, it was taken from what "I" have posted, on the net.....as for the Scientific realities of "What it is That I have to tell" (the rest of a T.O.E.) well, as you can see, I am a Homeless man, living in a Tent, on Principal!

The Principal oF MY RIGHT! TO MY FREEDOM! without someone, like Him, using (his? no!) The Awesome Power that is available through the Office of his current Occupation, to have me SUPRESSED!

(he wants it to be "An American" Who does this, gets this Notariety, and Fame, {Pride, ERGO/and BRAGGING RIGHTS!} NOT an "Alien" or a Canadian.....so I get to Just, well, sit here, waiting till he, what? changes his mind? realizes just how? what a? Deleted deleted deleeted he really is?...YIKES!! :eek: )

What now?

Oh Yes, are you useing the Word "Heuristic" Properly? cause I seem to be having some difficulty in applieing that word, in the Context, you seem to be using it in.

[Epsilon=One]

Why? (regarding faith)

Again, why.....and not meaning to be rude, but being Kinda Forward, (AKA BOLD!) is it because, YOU, personally, can't find, or muster, or maintain any?”Faith” is near equivalent to superstition. Faith, to me, indicates what is required when knowledge is lacking. Faith is a tool used by manipulators; usually, against the well being of those being manipulated.

When knowledge and wisdom are acquired, little faith is required.

.....on this (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=182) post alone, I can count at least eight (8) "New to me" terms I just checked "this post", “Mystique of the Ellipse,” and could find no words not linked or defined in the Thread. Please, advise which words you need defined, as others are probably also having difficulty.

…I have found that the ONE description of Gravity, "Attraction to a Common Center" to be Perfect in it's simplicity, descriptive of the truth of Gravities self-evident activity, and find no other phenomenon(s), that need any explaination, outside of the proper explaination of just how gravity works....currently NOT known, to either, the General Public, or the Scientific community(ies)…I don’t consider “Gravity” as an attractive force; thus, I try to differentiate from such erroneous reasoning. “Gravity’s” attraction is an anthropic illusion, which is responsible for much of the difficulty in unifying forces that are not understood. “Gravity” is not even a fundamental force. The etiology of “Gravity” does not begin until ”matter” is formed at Critical Coalescence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=204), at the end of the Congeneric Realm of Propagation (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130).

… they do nothing to validate me, in any way, shape, or form....what does that, tell you?One side is probably wrong.

as you can see, I am a Homeless man, living in a Tent, on Principal!I consider such as admirable.

…are you useing the Word "Heuristic" Properly? cause I seem to be having some difficulty in applieing that word, in the Context, you seem to be using it in.I define heuristic as commonly used:

1.) Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem: “The historian discovers the past by the judicious use of such a heuristic device as the ‘ideal type’" (Karl J. Weintraub)

2.) Of or constituting an educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

”Faith” is near equivalent to superstition. Faith, to me, indicates what is required when knowledge is lacking. Faith is a tool used by manipulators; usually, against the well being of those being manipulated. So you believe if you have no Faith you can never me Manipulated.....funny, I have no Faith in that.


When knowledge and wisdom are acquired, little faith is required.
But Wisdom comes only by Faith, faith in Knowledge


I just checked "this post", “Mystique of the Ellipse,” and could find no words not linked or defined in the Thread. Please, advise which words you need defined, as others are probably also having difficulty.

So not only am I required to learn all the new words, but the definitions, as well, after I even mentioned that AFAIK it can be done in the current, and present language, with little addition/Neologisms


I don’t consider “Gravity” as an attractive force; thus, I try to differentiate from such erroneous reasoning. “Gravity’s” attraction is an anthropic illusion, which is responsible for much of the difficulty in unifying forces that are not understood. “Gravity” is not even a fundamental force. The etiology of “Gravity” does not begin until ”matter” is formed at Critical Coalescence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=204), at the end of the Congeneric Realm of Propagation (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130).
How is the Idea that anything that I hold up in the air, then release, and see/observe that it is pulled towards the ground, an "Anthropic illusion"?

The formative moment of Gravity, is the First Neutron, Coming into existence, after all, it is the Particle of the generation of gravitie's ACTIVE force!


One side is probably wrong.Which one?

I consider such as admirable.And I?

I define heuristic as commonly used:
1.) Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem: “The historian discovers the past by the judicious use of such a heuristic device as the ‘ideal type’" (Karl J. Weintraub)
2.) Of or constituting an educational method in which learning takes place through discoveries that result from investigations made by the student.Saw that first one at Dictionary.com...maybe I'm just getting your useage erroneously....maybe not......

Forgive me but as I would think you would already know, coming up with new ideas requires that we find ways to communicate them that allow for the fullest of transmittals of all information, ergo it may all make complete sense in your mind, but, if you cannot find a manner to 'get it out' into the minds of others, in a manner that, they too, can comprehend, what you do, then , well, we are lost in a word play....it was one of the more difficult aspect of this ability, make Sure I wasn't just fooling myself....I can assure you Many have tried to fool me, nearly as many think they did, some (few?) DID! sometimes I did! (Fool myself...AKA Get it WRONG!) so, I find that anyone who has such certainty, well, if it is that certain then others will just as certainly, recognize it, or learn to recognize it, that is for SURE.

O.K.?

[Epsilon=One]

So you believe if you have no Faith you can never me Manipulated.....funny, I have no Faith in that.I was not arguing the negative.

But Wisdom comes only by Faith, faith in KnowledgeWisdom walks many paths. I do not define metaphysical faith as you are using the word “faith” in this context. Semantics is an immense hurdle between two or more minds.

So not only am I required to learn all the new words, but the definitions, as well, after I even mentioned that AFAIK it can be done in the current, and present language, with little addition/NeologismsYou explain to me how to succinctly express the concept of “Ultron” without going into a long boring discussion of exotic “dark” matter; and, that separates it from current words with erroneous connotations. I will be happy to use your word if it expresses “some” contextual meaning.


How is the Idea that anything that I hold up in the air, then release, and see/observe that it is pulled towards the ground, an "Anthropic illusion"?Because that is precisely what it is, an anthropic illusion, when you use the word “pulled.” It is pushed!!!

The formative moment of Gravity, is the First Neutron, Coming into existence, after all, it is the Particle of the generation of gravitie's ACTIVE force!You are mistaken.


Forgive me but as I would think you would already know, coming up with new ideas requires that we find ways to communicate them that allow for the fullest of transmittals of all information, ergo it may all make complete sense in your mind, but, if you cannot find a manner to 'get it out' into the minds of others, in a manner that, they too, can comprehend, what you do, then, well, we are lost in a word play....I doubt that anyone can understand this better than I.

…I find that anyone who has such certainty, well, if it is that certain then others will just as certainly, recognize it, or learn to recognize it, that is for SURE.I concur. If I had no certainty, I wouldn’t expect others to follow

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV
I was not arguing the negative.Clearly

Wisdom walks many paths. I do not define metaphysical faith as you are using the word “faith” in this context. Semantics is an immense hurdle between two or more minds.Faith in the Sun appearing on the Horizin Tomorrow morning is Waaaaaay Different then Faith, in God, one is faith, the other, the reason why faith could be learned, in the First Place.

Some-antics is More the Game of Little Miss-interpretation, haven't seen her around here....you?


You explain to me how to succinctly express the concept of “Ultron” without going into a long boring discussion of exotic “dark” matter; and, that separates it from current words with erroneous connotations. I will be happy to use your word if it expresses “some” contextual meaning.Hummm, apparently? I am missing something? usually, when someone 'coins a new term' (a Neologism) they do so, as to describe something, but usually it is not something that, thereafter is described as being, well, 'long and boring' to describe....cause that is usually the reason D'etre of New terms, Succinct descriptors of reasonably Relatable Concepts....apparently? the only part of the concept, that you can relate, succinctly, is the Name.....WOW.


Because that is precisely what it is, an anthropic illusion, when you use the word “pulled.” It is pushed!!!Funny, physical Matter Has ONLY two (2) Actions, EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, IT does NOTHING ELSE, now is that pulling expansion? or is it pushing expansion? or Pulling contraction? or pushing contraction?

You are mistaken.And good proof you demonstrate backing up your, well, anthropic emissive, ooops...almost getting rude, here...

I concur. If I had no certainty, I wouldn’t expect others to follow....and Have your expectations been met? Yet?

[Epsilon=One]

...I am missing something? usually, when someone 'coins a new term' (a Neologism) they do so, as to describe something, but usually it is not something that, thereafter is described as being, well, 'long and boring' to describe....cause that is usually the reason D'etre of New terms, Succinct descriptors of reasonably Relatable Concepts....apparently? the only part of the concept, that you can relate, succinctly, is the Name.....WOW.You seem to understand my point.

Funny, physical Matter Has ONLY two (2) Actions, EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, IT does NOTHING ELSE,...I disagree. "Matter" has many other qualities. Some are: Charge; Spin; Oscillations of: Vibration, Slide, Swing; Dissipation, etc. etc.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You seem to understand my point.and apparently you missed mine.....completely!
I disagree. "Matter" has many other qualities. Some are: Charge; Spin; Oscillations of: Vibration, Slide, Swing; Dissipation, etc. etc.Apparently you don't seem to catch the difference between "actions" and "characteristics" Now, who is the one attempting to use Semantics? or is it really just Some-antics!??

[Epsilon=One]

and apparently you missed mine.....completely!Ludicrous quibbling. I was agreeing with you concerning neologisms.

Let's elevate the intellectual inquiry of this dialogue to the topic of the Thread.

Apparently you don't seem to catch the difference between "actions" and "characteristics" Now, who is the one attempting to use Semantics? or is it really just Some-antics!??It is not a question of semantics. I, apparently, just, entirely, did not understand your thought,

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV
Ludicrous quibbling. I was agreeing with you concerning neologisms. Uhmm no you were not as I was making the point that neologism's as usually used, when something that is readily definable, simply definable, needs a (simpler) name. that was NOT your point, your new namesake apparently defies description in a simplistic secondary manner.

It is not a question of semantics. I, apparently, just, entirely, did not understand your thought,Sorry been in enough forums as to know that usage....that last line of yours, the one I amnot supposed to embolden as to refer to it.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Let's elevate the intellectual inquiry of this dialogue to the topic of the Thread.Please go read posts #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 and see if you can figure out, who? is leading whom? astray, from the thread

Clearly, I will admit to, having followed, but what is the nature of the (?) that I followed?

God's Grace! I am learning, from it's Spores!

[Epsilon=One]

...no you were not as I was making the point that neologism's as usually used, when something that is readily definable, simply definable, needs a (simpler) name. that was NOT your point, your new namesake apparently defies description in a simplistic secondary manner.Whatever . . . I thought I was being complimentary and agreeing with you ???

[Epsilon=One]

Please go read posts #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 and see if you can figure out, who? is leading whom? astray, from the thread

Clearly, I will admit to, having followed, but what is the nature of the (?) that I followed?Not the point as to fault. The point is that we should return to the topic of the Thread.

[drjustian]

I'm afraid that I don't have the strength necessary for the type of faith needed to believe that there is a god, but that 'he' or 'it' has no interest in me or my friends. Who the heck needs that? Sometimes 'faith' can be found in what we think of as physics. I wonder how anyone can believe in some of the theories espoused. That's the point, some people 'believe' in a theory without any objective manifestations or experiential demonstration. Frankly, a belief in a god of any kind or nature has nothing to do with common sense, logic or reason, only 'faith'. I am a True Believer (remember Marshall McLuhan, the philosopher, he wrote the book, "The True Believer", he was in a Woody Allen movie, standing behind Woody who, without knowing McLuhan was behind him, discussed what McLuhan said and believed, McLuhan interupted Woody and said, "I am Marshall McLuhan, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about", It was really funny at the time). What I believe, as far as a god is concerned, is based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is a brain hard wired for my faith. I find a lot of faith, however, also in theories of physics. Einstein and Mach would roll their eyes over with such things.

[Epsilon=One]

I'm afraid that I don't have the strength necessary for the type of faith needed to believe that there is a god, but that 'he' or 'it' has no interest in me or my friends. Who the heck needs that?
...
What I believe, as far as a god is concerned, is based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is a brain hard wired for my faith. I find a lot of faith, however, also in theories of physics. Einstein and Mach would roll their eyes over with such things.Your thoughts are refreshing. Particularly, concerning "a brain hard wired" for faith.

Hopefully, the "lot of faith" that you "find" for physics will not be long required as their is a Paradigm Shift from Standard Model physics to the long sought "new physics."

See: Proof of god (www.CQthus.com/PT/POG) and My Creed (www.CQthus.com/PT/Creed).

[Paul N. Butler]

St Germain;

E=MC^2 is roughly the equivalent of total entity motion in the first five dimensions between a photon of energy with a velocity of C=1 which only has motions in the first four dimensions and a particle of matter at rest that also possesses motion in the fifth dimension. Unlike the dimensional interface structure between the first three spatial dimensions and the fourth spatial dimension, which causes any composite three dimensional velocity greater than the speed of light to be induced into the fourth dimension (thus generating the photon’s variable mass, frequency, and wavelength effects) velocity is only transferred from the fourth dimension to the fifth spatial dimension to generate a matter particle (by causing the photon to take a curved path in the first three dimensions, which closes upon itself to create a matter particle (the particle is actually the enclosed path)) when certain angular components are present. It is therefore possible to have a photon with about .511 MEV with all of the motion above the speed of light contained in the fourth dimension and at the same time have an electron with about .511 MEV in which a portion of the motion has been transferred from the fourth dimension velocity to the fifth dimension to generate the fifth dimensional velocity. This velocity transfer can, of course, also go in the opposite direction under the proper conditions. C is squared due to the multiple expansion factor that an extra dimension introduces. For matter particles in motion, momentum factors must be added to the formula to account for the particles additional motions. Like all approximations other factors can come into play in advanced fifth vector structuring applications, (comment to future generations) but for the present technology level this should suffice.

[defg470]

I am told that you dance wonderfully well.

[pjakesmith]

It was an amazing article! A writer like you should be given credit for your dedication to work as your provide good quality articles with the good purpose. I like to read such articles for they tackle different issues in our society as well as different practicalities and knowledge that a certain person should or must know. I will keep reading your next post that will be an interesting article again as usual.