Cosmos/Universe/Megaverse/Multiverse/Surpraverse/

[wstein]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

"source"? I belive all bosonic forces are eternally existent ergo there is no source as you suggest.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

4) and this is why are generalized cosmic laws/principles are considered to universal, to all "regions of space", and allow human to even consider the idea of a cosmic law/principle.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

What is beyond our finite "reality" is non-occupied space.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Reality = finite set of occupied space

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Non-occupied space = what is beyond our finite set of reality.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Spacetime = a "reality" ergo a "substance" and is common to all allededge "realities" or "universe's" or "parrallel universes".

None of the above are 'proven'. They are all just your unsupported beliefs.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

As always WS, if you find any of my comments to not be the truth tthen please address them specifically as stated, and supply a rationally logical explanation as to why they are invalid.

No rationally logical explanation will be coming from me. There is no reason to believe that reality is in any way explained by rationality or logic. I can not rationally explain why things exist. I can only tell you my observations.

<edit: not constructive>

[r6r6]

wstein}---{No rationally logical explanation will be coming from me.

Typical for you and I seem to recall you stating that some weeks back in another thread.

There is no reason to believe that reality is in any way explained by rationality or logic.

Plenty of our observed "reality" is rationally, logical and common sensically explained and humans have been doing it for century's.

I can not rationally explain why things exist.

I don't ask why asking you "things" exist. I asked you for rationally logical explanation of how alledged-- not proven to exist --universe's cannot have a gravitational mass-attractive connection.

I can only tell you my observations.

Huh? WS if your trying to tell us that you have observed other univers's and that you observed there was no gravitational mass-attraction between them, then I think your synaptic screws have loosen a little too much.

Gravity comes from a source presumably in a similar manner to the other forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak). You seem to acknowledge that universes don't interact via these other forces (sometimes at least), why should gravity be any different?

To clarify upon this comment by you, all I attempted to acknowlege, is that at minimum there is always/eternally a gravitational mass-attraction iin any any multiple universe's.

It was David Deustch who keot claiming there would not be any other interrelationships, not me. So your assessment of my words is not exactly correct

Contrary to you WS, I've contructed a well defined and wholistically comprensive, cosmic heirarchy, that you nor anyone else has offerred any rational logic that would in any way, invalidate any of my givens as stated.

You have constructed an idea that a "multiverse" of "parrallel universe's" aka as your "regions of reality" may have some "universe's" that are not connected in any way to other universe's.

Your seem to be concerned wity my having proofs yet you certainly offer no proofs of your claims, other than your appeart to suggest your "observations" of what exactly I dunno.

Please come back and share wheny you have any rationally logical comments that actually invalidate my given comments, and espeiclaly in regards to cosmic hierarchy.

I don't think you have much to offer us in that way and that is why you or no one else has either.

r6

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Believe in scientific principle but not a scientist. Jack of many-- autor mechanic, beef cattle ranching, dairy farming, oil rig rough neck, logger, farming, mushrooms, trades, carpenter, plumber, painter, electician, food industry, and more odd jobs ---- and master of none.

If you find algebra in my threads then your confused and reading someone elses post, in most cases.

1) you understand the number 1)?

You understand metaphysical-1?

It is all English for most part and those words are in dictionary and I've spent much effort to clarify my definitions of those words that are many times also very similar to what is in the dictionary as I've pointed out to other numerous times.

If you get to a word, sentence and concept..your welcome to ask.

I can find you mucho stuff that is way more complicated to understand, than anything I haveever posted becasue it is way more advanced technically and way more abstract mathmatical equations than I have ever offerred.

My concepts tend to have people think in ways they have not thought of much before, and yes any of the geometry stuff is special words that many are not familiar with so that does take a lot more effort and especially so if there are no associated graphics.

r6

r6 - Wow, you are a jack of all trades! I mentioned that I flunked algebra just to demonstrate my inability to grasp that line of thinking. I'm very left-brained and am a certified handwriting analyst and artist with a Bachelor's Degree in Written Communications. Interestingly, even though I flunked algebra I passed geometry with flying colors because I'm very visual and could see how those equations worked out better. Thanks for responding to my post. I will read more with discernment and understand to the best of my ability. I find metaphysics intriguing.

Blackraven

[wstein]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Huh? WS if your trying to tell us that you have observed other univers's and that you observed there was no gravitational mass-attraction between them, then I think your synaptic screws have loosen a little too much.

It seems that way. Foolishly, I tried again to provide alternate input but it doesn't meet your acceptable parameters.

I think you finally heard that my experience tells me that not all parts of reality are connected via gravity. You just won't accept that as possible.

You rigidly hold to your ideas without any leeway to consider it might not be that way no matter how perfect your model.

Nothing else I can do at this point. I will waste no more time on this.

---------------
My apologies to any one else reading this thread, this 'discussion' has spilled over a bit from other threads.

[r6r6]

wstein--}It seems that way. Foolishly, I tried again to provide alternate input but it doesn't meet your acceptable parameters.

You have nothing that is rationally logical to offer us--- and you state so yourself ---. If it is not rationally logical then it may appear to most as nonsensical.

Ex your observations of universe's beyond our observable universe, that do not have a graviational interrlationship. No evidence for such ergo loose synaptic screws.

I think you finally heard that my experience tells me that not all parts of reality are connected via gravity. You just won't accept that as possible.

Huh? I heard it every time you stated it. Loose synapitc screws are messing with your observations, is how it appears to me WS.

You rigidly hold to your ideas without any leeway to consider it might not be that way no matter how perfect your model.

I've stated what is obvious to many scientist types of cosmology and physics within our observable Universe. That is basis for my parameters and you want to imagine something else, with no evidence of such and certainly no rational logic why two or more univers'es would not have gravitational interrelationship, other than you say they dont.

Nothing else I can do at this point. I will waste no more time on this.

Rational logic if not also common sense is rarely a waste of time. The waste of time is that you cannot muster any rational logic that invalidates any of my given comments and especially in regards to my comprehensively wholistic, cosmic hierarchy.

Spirit-3( gravity ) > Spirit-2 fermions and bosons > Spirit-1 > science( child objectively discovers gravity ) > philosophys( teenager asks how and why ) > application( subjectively )religion( collective non-sense and sensible answers )

r6