Is there such a thing as a fixed constant?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Gem--quoting r6..."I say finite, occupied space UniVerse is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space."....

Here is what you claimed I said in your previous post..."Gem--"Macro embraces micro" your words."....so once again, I have to ask I dont recall saying what you claim, so where do you find yours words in my comments?

I think your temporarily confused Gem.

I quoted you directly, and pointed out that making assumptions is just saying so. I understand what you say, but there's nothing to grasp.

Ive laid out the rational logical common sense for in many threads here at SF on other places for some years now and some of that rational logic common sense is in this thread.

You pretty much gloss over most--- 99% of time ---of what I say and go off on some irrelevant tangent. imho

I told you before, I don't understand what you're on about due to you using such peculiar language.

If you want to hear my my more comprehensive set of rational logical common sense explanations as how come to those beliefs, then all you have to do is ask.

I asked you to use a language I understand, otherwise there is no point.

I have whole threads here at SF that cover that aspect.

Again, I dont think my alledged "jargon" is your biggest problem in having a rational, logical common sense disscussion with me.

r6

It is the only problem, and I'm sure if you use the common vernacular, the communication would be more meaningful. I would go further to assume that this is probably an obstacle to communicating with others as well.

[r6r6]

Gem---I quoted you directly, and pointed out that making assumptions is just saying so. I understand what you say, but there's nothing to grasp.

Quoting someone directly is only half-way to acknolegedmetn and comprehension, an affirmative, negating or I dunno to the comment, as stated.

There is plenty to grasp, it is new concept to some. For you too say there is nothing to grasp is false statement. This is common for you.

Just as you quote me directly and state words I did not state.

.....Gem--"Macro embraces micro" your words.".... No that is false statement, at least in regards to my recent statement that I have repreated, quoted and you have quoted directly.


So ask you for third time, I dont recall making the statement you claim I did and ask you again can you tell me where I can find the set of words exactly as you claim I stated?

I told you before, I don't understand what you're on about due to you using such peculiar language.
I asked you to use a language I understand, otherwise there is no point.

Yes you do know most of what I mean and you know what metaphysical-1 means. Your in denial of obvious truths. I use English even tho you keep calling jargon if not at one time a special language.

English is not any more special than any other language. You continue to make false statements that only make you appear in denial of obvious truths

It is the only problem, and I'm sure if you use the common vernacular, the communication would be more meaningful. I would go further to assume that this is probably an obstacle to communicating with others as well.

Ive seen you take a concept by me, in the most clear, concise and meaningful statements all in english, and you use more words, in more muddled way to show that you grasp the concept, yet still deny you understand anything or that there is anything to understand.

Your problem with me is not any alledged "jargon" or other special language...........

Your problem is with ability to acknowledge, affirm or deny, the rational, logical common sense of my comments as stated.

Your not the only one here at SF that fall short of ability to have rational, logical common sense disscussion. Your just the one of few that make an attempt before falling short.

How sincere you efforts are is 50/50. imho

r6

[r6r6]

Finite, occupied space UniVerse's realtionship to the macro-infinite non-occupied space, is conceptual relationship ergo not a line-of-relationship.

And this conceptual relationship is a constant. That our finite, Universe may expand or contract does not change that conceptual relationship.

A line-of-relationship that is not conceptual, requires two, occupied space integrities and the line-of-relationship between them can be labeled as a vector, and a vectorial line-of-relationship also occupies space.

Gravity if not also dark energy are two vectorial constants of our finite Universe i.e. gravity is operational at all distances and on all particles, whether fermionic or bosonic.

r6

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Constants can be relative/referenced to other constants, just as cosmic laws/principle can be relative to other cosmic laws/prinicples.
Time is constant..(>)
...and relative....
Motion is constant..~~~~
...speeds may and do vary....
Frequency is constant..VVV
...yet there eternally exist various frequencices....
Angle is constant...V
...ditto the above.....
Non-occupied space is a constant....
....fixed constant.....
Occupied space is a constant....--------
...fixed constant that variable constant....

Change is a constant...v^v^
...inherent invokes variation....

[r6r6]

To get a fix on something is to triangulate it. If we want to mathematically ergo conceptually get a fix on some location outside of our finite Universe, then,

we need three distance meaurements that can only be referenced to our finite UniVerse in whole or in part.

r6

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Finite, occupied space UniVerse's realtionship to the macro-infinite non-occupied space, is conceptual relationship ergo not a line-of-relationship.
And this conceptual relationship is a constant. That our finite, Universe may expand or contract does not change that conceptual relationship.
A line-of-relationship that is not conceptual, requires two, occupied space integrities and the line-of-relationship between them can be labeled as a vector, and a vectorial line-of-relationship also occupies space.
Gravity if not also dark energy are two vectorial constants of our finite Universe i.e. gravity is operational at all distances and on all particles, whether fermionic or bosonic.
r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Quoting someone directly is only half-way to acknolegedmetn and comprehension, an affirmative, negating or I dunno to the comment, as stated.

There is plenty to grasp, it is new concept to some. For you too say there is nothing to grasp is false statement. This is common for you.

Just as you quote me directly and state words I did not state.

.....Gem--"Macro embraces micro" your words.".... No that is false statement, at least in regards to my recent statement that I have repreated, quoted and you have quoted directly.


So ask you for third time, I dont recall making the statement you claim I did and ask you again can you tell me where I can find the set of words exactly as you claim I stated?

Yes you do know most of what I mean and you know what metaphysical-1 means. Your in denial of obvious truths. I use English even tho you keep calling jargon if not at one time a special language.

There's no use making up some weird term like 'metaphysical-1'. This are not the terms anyone else uses, so no-one understands what the hell you're talking about. Your tact seems to be to make up a weird term that no one else uses, the explain what you mean by that strange language usage - and you seem to think that's some sort of logic.

English is not any more special than any other language. You continue to make false statements that only make you appear in denial of obvious truths

You can't honestly think people understand what you meann by 'metaphysical-1'. They don't.

Ive seen you take a concept by me, in the most clear, concise and meaningful statements all in english, and you use more words, in more muddled way to show that you grasp the concept, yet still deny you understand anything or that there is anything to understand.

I don't think you mean anything - most of what you do is define your strange terms.

Your problem with me is not any alledged "jargon" or other special language...........

No one understands your peculiar turns of phrase.

Your problem is with ability to acknowledge, affirm or deny, the rational, logical common sense of my comments as stated.

Your not the only one here at SF that fall short of ability to have rational, logical common sense disscussion. Your just the one of few that make an attempt before falling short.

How sincere you efforts are is 50/50. imho

r6

This is SF - have you seen the kind of threads around here? Not the sort of place for rational logical common sense.

[r6r6]

Gem---There's no use making up some weird term like 'metaphysical-1'.

1) there is a use, and Ive clearly laid out what it means 99% of the time I use it with additional descriptive terms,

2) and it is not as wierd as you falsely project it to be.

Ive repeatedly told you to learn how a dictionary functions and learn to use them. Dictionary word may have many differrent numbers for each definiton.

Your in denial and just refuse to accept my rational logical common sense scenarios. So you lash out with false projections.

You can't honestly think people understand what you meann by 'metaphysical-1'. They don't.

Ditto the above. Metaphysical has more than one definition. Your in denial of truth i.e. yes, you do too know what I mean.

I don't think you mean anything - most of what you do is define your strange terms.

You keep repeating this and I keep repeating begin by offering even one in your alledged list of strange words. And again, if there is a word some doesnt understand they can ask.

There is no shame in asking and more so because a word can have different definitions.

No one understands your peculiar turns of phrase.

Peculiar, strange, or whatever labels you want to apply, is irrespective of the facts I'm using English words found in English dictionaries.

If and when you want to not create false projections, and actually have a rational, logical common sense disscussion, please share.

Ive seen litttle of the latter from you.

This is SF - have you seen the kind of threads around here? Not the sort of place for rational logical common sense.

Yeah, well you try to buck that system of irrational superstition as I do. You have a differrent approach than I do.

Your approach is more muddled and mine more concise and refined. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1) there is a use, and Ive clearly laid out what it means 99% of the time I use it with additional descriptive terms,

2) and it is not as wierd as you falsely project it to be.

Ive repeatedly told you to learn how a dictionary functions and learn to use them. Dictionary word may have many differrent numbers for each definiton.

Your in denial and just refuse to accept my rational logical common sense scenarios. So you lash out with false projections.


Ditto the above. Metaphysical has more than one definition. Your in denial of truth i.e. yes, you do too know what I mean.

'metaphysical-1' isn't in any dictionary I know of.

You keep repeating this and I keep repeating begin by offering even one in your alledged list of strange words. And again, if there is a word some doesnt understand they can ask.

There is no shame in asking and more so because a word can have different definitions.

Why not use language that people understand? More to the point, why would you choose to use a terminology that people don't understand?

Peculiar, strange, or whatever labels you want to apply, is irrespective of the facts I'm using English words found in English dictionaries.

I can't find metaphysical-1 in a dictionary.

If and when you want to not create false projections, and actually have a rational, logical common sense disscussion, please share.

Ive seen litttle of the latter from you.

Yeah, well you try to buck that system of irrational superstition as I do. You have a differrent approach than I do.

Your approach is more muddled and mine more concise and refined. imho

r6

Ok, Mr. refinement I don't care if you continue to use some specialised language with and colour codes and symbols you invented, because all I can do is suggest that you write in common English. I'm sure if you do that you will have more effective communication.

[r6r6]

Learn how a dictionary functions Gem, practice using the dictionary, and then, maybe, we can have a rational, logical, common sense disscussion with out any muddling or false projections on your part. One can only hope.

r6

Originally Posted by Gem

'metaphysical-1' isn't in any dictionary I know of.
Why not use language that people understand? More to the point, why would you choose to use a terminology that people don't understand?
I can't find metaphysical-1 in a dictionary.
Ok, Mr. refinement I don't care if you continue to use some specialised language with and colour codes and symbols you invented, because all I can do is suggest that you write in common English. I'm sure if you do that you will have more effective communication.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Learn how a dictionary functions Gem, practice using the dictionary, and then, maybe, we can have a rational, logical, common sense disscussion with out any muddling or false projections on your part. One can only hope.

r6

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Learn how a dictionary functions Gem, practice using the dictionary, and then, maybe, we can have a rational, logical, common sense disscussion with out any muddling or false projections on your part. One can only hope.

r6

Metaphysical-1 isn't in any dictionary I've seen. Another example: I don't understand what your signature means because it's in special r6 language. You seem to think that explaining what you mean by terms you make up is rational and logical. I'm saying I don't give a damn how you use a language with metaphysical-1 and different ways of spelling universe and colour codes and symbols etc - all I'm saying is, I don't have a clue what you're on about, so please use common English!

[r6r6]

Gem---Metaphysical-1 isn't in any dictionary I've seen.

Weve been over that a few times. Stop beating a dead horse and learn how dictionary functions, practice using and get beyond your narrow mind-set. Thx

Another example: I don't understand what your signature means because it's in special r6 language.

1) First off I think your just complaining and not really asking me what I mean

2) 2nd Ive actually given any definitional variations in many other threads.

3)The first 3 words are variations of the Universe ergo slighty differrent definitions are inferred. I have no evidence you have any concept of any the word Universe, much less any slight variations of definitions, even in dictionaries.

Learn how to use dictionary, and practice using and then, if truly desire to get beyond your narrow-mindedness and have a rational, logical comomn sense discussion, you can begin by actually addressing word or commmen that you truly want to understand and not just repeatedly, complain i.e. beating a dead horse is not productive.

You seem to think that explaining what you mean by terms you make up is rational and logical. I'm saying I don't give a damn how you use a language with metaphysical-1 and different ways of spelling universe and colour codes and symbols etc - all I'm saying is, I don't have a clue what you're on about, so please use common English!

Yes you do. You have a bug in your brain that allows you remain narrow-minded in regards to words and various defintiions that is very commmon with many words.

Get over it already Gem. Your not truly interested in anything I have to say. Your only interest, in regards to me is to keep-beating-a -dead-horse.

Save your irrelevant complaining for those who need it.

Learn how a dictionary functions and practice using it.

All my words are in dictionary;

metaphysical
Universe.
I, you, we, them and verse are all in many dictionaries but your brain has hit a wall that allows you to limit your comprehensive ailities to a narrow corridor of intellectual understanding and curiosity about our cosmos.

This repeated complainingg/beating dead horse is not productive. I will not continue to respond to complaining by you regarding most irrelevant, insignifcant and non-critical additions to any word I use.

You have now moved into a permanent phase that has to nothing to me except non-productive complaining.

r6