Is there such a thing as a fixed constant?

[HMyBodhisattva]

Scientifically there are a lot of constants. Even when performing experiments you can hold one or more variables constant. Many scientific theories and hypothesis contain constants.

[r6r6]

However, to be clear, all of the list I posted previously, are constants.

Constants can be relative 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....

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I agree/confirm/validate your above as being correct.
In the 60's or 70's we would say 'it' as in the Universe as IT, is all relative.
IT being more a noun-like.
IS being more verb-like i.e. change is a process.
thx Gem, you have good mind, for the most part.
r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Hi Gem, youur use of the word "consequential" makes me think of the word resultant i.e. they may be synonyms in this case.

I use 'consequential' because it's not chronological where first there is cause and then there is effect. It's more like a 'space event'.

I think your refering a specific kind of space or spacetime that is alledged to be gravitational spacetime. Proof of the quantum grainiest was tested via loop quantum gravities support team via the arrival of differrent frequencies of photons on Earth from a common source far away.

There theory said that, the grainy/quantum gravitation should cause some frequencies of radiation to arrive slight slower than others.

This was not the case, so it was back to the drawing board.


First off Gem, you have yet to really grasp this concept of non-occupied space, that Ive I have been trying to clearly lay out here at SF and other places for a few years now in various threads and always in my various versions of my cosmological heirarchy---- Ex Universe in a Nutshell--type threads.

The space your refering to is like the space between here and moon or between solar systems or between galaxies or between clusters of galaxies.

I'm just mean space. That devoid of content.

All of those spaces are occupied ergo whenever Ive used the terms occupied space those spaces are included. They are not truly non-occupied space. Feynman expressed this fact in one of the documentary vidieos made of him on PBS or Ameican Masters or something like that.

Those spaces you mention above and I clarify are filled with stuff, EMRadiation if not other fermionic matter also to whateve degree.



This is differrent issue and not related to any ideas Ive ever stated that involve non-occupied space.

I will explain again, for you, the differrence between non-occupied space and occupied space, and where they exist. You will have to use some rational logical common sense to grasp the following.


If we live in a finite, occupied space UniVerse. Then what is outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space Universe.


1) "U"niverse = macro infinite non-occupied space and finite occupied space UniVerse and metaphysical-1 concepts ex concepts of God

2) UniVerse = finite occupied space Universe ergo fermions, bosons and odd-bird-out attractive gravity if not also odd-bird-out repulsive dark energy.

3) universe's = ideas allowing for iindividual-- tho not independant ---multiple local universes scenarios, that, are sum-totally connected by gravity as the above mentioned #2 Universe.

......this 3rd version also includes ideas of and individual person local sphere of influence as their own local universe.

Now, if you actually read any of the above,perhaps you can finally actually make the clear distinction betwee;

1) truly non-occupied space that embraces our finite UniVerse,

and

2) our finite occupied space UniVerse.


r6

I'm referring to space without stuff in it, so it's unoccupied, and it can't be occupied actually, because there no size to it. It would be as though the observer is everywhere at once, so to speak.

[r6r6]

Gem---I use 'consequential' because it's not chronological where first there is cause and then there is effect. It's more like a 'space event'.

Resultants are not neccessarily chronological as you infer or seem to think they have to be. Resultants can be directly related but resultants can be more indirec, and occur much further into the future from the time of the actual occurence of some event/phenomena/happening.

As to use of "space event" above I have no idea what that is in reference to eactly/specifically i.e makes no sense to me.

I'm just mean space. That devoid of content.

As I state previous, and you did not address specifically, I think you dont yet grasp the differrence between truly non-occupied space that only exists outside of our finite Universe, and,

the seemingly non-occupied space between moon and earth, solar systems, galaxies. I have to repeat this because you do not address those specific as stated, ergo it appears you still speaking in circles without grasp of these distinctione that Ive been laying out here at SF and else for a few years now.

I.e. you seem to ignore, or whatever, some of my comments as stated by not addressing them specifically as stated. This makes for muddling of the disscussion. imho

I'm referring to space without stuff in it, so it's unoccupied, and it can't be occupied actually, because there no size to it. It would be as though the observer is everywhere at once, so to speak.

Ditto my above as appear to be gleaning over specific distinctions, definitions and more comprehensively cosmological understandings.

Youve not stated anything that makes it clear you grasp the distinctions Ive laid out for you and others. I.e. you appear to ignore or whatever....some of my comments as stated by no addressing them specifically. This makes for muddling of disscussion of ideas. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Resultants are not neccessarily chronological as seem to think they have to be. Resultants can be directly related but resultants can be more indirect and occur much further into the future from actuall occurence of some event/phenomena/happening.

As to use of "space event" above I have no idea what that is in reference to eactly/specifically i.e makes no sense to me.

Event happens at once. Not chronologically.

As I state previous, and you did not address specifically, I think you dont yet grasp the differrence between truly non-occupied space that only exists outside of our finite Universe, and,

Sure, unoccupied space has nothing in it.

the seemingly non-occupied space between moon and earth, solar systems, galaxies. I have to repeat this because you do not address those specific as stated, ergo it appears you still speaking in circles without grasp of these distinctione that Ive been laying out here at SF and else for a few years now.

The space between things is occupied by stuff.

Ditto my above as appear to be gleaning over specific distinctions, definitions and more comprehensively cosmological understandings.

Youve not stated anything that makes it clear you grasp the distinctions Ive laid out for you and others.

r6

I'm just talking about space with nothing in it. Unoccupied.

This doesn't have a distance component, or even a location for that matter.

[r6r6]

Gem--Event happens at once. Not chronologically.

Huhs? A concert is an event and it happens over time-- hours if not days( Woodstock ) ---

Events both macro-medio and quantum occur with resultants that can be chronnologically in sequence or not.

My comments address resultant events and they do not have to be in sequence, chronological etc...your statement appear to me as irrelevant to my comments as stated. Here again, I think you only muddle the disscussion rather than address my specifics as stated.

Sure, unoccupied space has nothing in it.

First off Ive always stated non-occupied space, and here again you do not address my comments with specific clarity that you do indeed grasp the distinctions Ive clearly laid out.

You give back as minimis any corrobating comment to my specfics as stated. Its short changes the dissucssion. imho

The space between things is occupied by stuff.

Yes, however, I still feel your minimizing your response, that makes clear your grasp the distinctions Ive laid out here and in other threads you have participated in.

I'm just talking about space with nothing in it. Unoccupied.

I'm not sure that you really are doing that. And I say this because you have yet to acknowledge what Ive laid out clearly. Truly non-occupied space is outside our finite Universe.

You refuse to address that specific comment in this thread and in others Ive posted. Whereas Ive been very clear in stating that, whereas many consider the space between the moon and earth, or galaxies etc...mostly non-occupied, that is not what I'm talking about.

When you can actually state where eactly this unoccupied space is that your state, and Ive yet to see any the relevance of your comments toward. imho

IF you cant clarify so as we actually addressing the same space definitions and how there referenced then we as other so often do, are just talking past each, and there is really is no point in that, unless one or both parties do not truly want to have a rational, logical, common sense and meaningful conversation.

I think you are one of the few around here to have that kind of disscussion in physics and cosmological matters.

I think the choice is yours to make more of effort, or not.

r6

This doesn't have a distance component, or even a location for that matter.[/quote]

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Huhs? My conments address resultant events and thedo not have to be in sequence, chronological etc...your statement is irrelevant to my comments as stated. Here again, I think you only muddle the disscussion rather than address my specifics as stated.

Your comment was in regards to results that can happen in near and distant futures, so I clarified 'makes no sense to you' by saying that events happen at once, and not chronologically.

First off Ive always stated non-occupied space, and here again you do not address my comments with specific clarity that you do indeed grasp the distinctions Ive clearly laid out.

Sure I do. Unoccupied space is unoccupied. Occupied space has stuff in it.

You give back as minimis any corrobating comment to my specfics as stated. Its short changes the dissucssion. imho

Yes, however, I still feel your minimizing your response, that makes clear your grasp the distinctions Ive laid out here and in other threads you have participated in.

I usually have no idea what you're talking about, and when I do, I wonder your point is. You seem to associate shapes with particles but the shapes don't explain anything or describe particle behaviour.

I'm not sure that you really are doing that. And I say this because you have yet to acknowledge what Ive laid out clearly. Truly non-occupied space is outside our finite Universe.

Hence unoccupied. Of course.

You refuse to address that specific comment in this thread and in others Ive posted. Whereas Ive been very clear in stating that, whereas many consider the space between the moon and earth, or galaxies etc...mostly non-occupied, that is not what I'm talking about.

Same here. I'm talking about unoccupied space.

When you can actually state where eactly this unoccupied space is that your state, and Ive yet to see any the relevance of your comments toward. imho

Unoccupied space isn't anywhere, has no size, and indeed, is entirely devoid of location.

IF you cant clarify so as we actually addressing the same space definitions and how there referenced then we as other so often do, are just talking past each, and there is really is no point in that, unless one or both parties do not truly want to have a rational, logical, common sense and meaningful conversation.

I think you are one of the few around here to have that kind of disscussion in physics and cosmological matters.

I think the choice is yours to make more of effort, or not.

r6

Whats the effort, unoccupied space contains nothing (I point out it hasn't location) and occupied space has stuff in it.

[Kerubiel]

yes and no.

[r6r6]

Gem---Your comment was in regards to results that can happen in near and distant futures, so I clarified 'makes no sense to you' by saying that events happen at once, and not chronologically.

Some quantum events happen at once so what. That was irrelevant to my comments.

Some events take time to occur and have many events that composed the larger event. I just think your not clear. Short quips often offer us little clarifying information. imho

Sure I do. Unoccupied space is unoccupied. Occupied space has stuff in it.

Your still short changing the back-n-fort of information being disscusson i.e you dont really want to have and indepth and comprenhensive disscussion of the issue yo initiated and I responded to.

I usually have no idea what you're talking about, and when I do, I wonder your point is. You seem to associate shapes with particles but the shapes don't explain anything or describe particle behaviour.

Ive made many efforts with much clarifying defintions, explanations etc.
Your rarely if ever ask me even one question regarding what I meant with this statement or word.

I.e. 99% you never asked. Here recently I was clear from the get go, I had no idea what your statements were alluding too..'whats the point'..and I clarified how your statements really do not make clear that you and i really disscussing the same circumstances with use of the words non-occupied, occupied and unoccupied.

Part of what entals that clarity of being on same page is addressing enough of the others ideas that we can know were on the same page.

You still have not done that, in the specifics Ive mentioned. Your continue to minimize your responses to short quips and do not really put much effort make clear that you know I mean, and you agree or not.

You appear to want to just misdirect and have the disscussion go on with each other not really on the same page.

There is no point in doing sol as there exists no exchange of significantly relevant and clear information. imho

You have good mind. However, you fall short a lot of fulfiling that function in clear and significant useful way. imho.

I'm very clear many times that non-occupied space is outside of Universe.

You never ever have made clear where eactly this unoccupied space is that you mention in reply and as inferrence that were on the same page.

If were on the same page, then you would have no problem clarifying where this unccupied space is. You do not so that leaves it unclear as to whether were on same page. Who knows? I sure dont cause you short change the information exchange.

Unoccupied space isn't anywhere, has no size, and indeed, is entirely devoid of location.

Oh good, you finally want have a signficantly valid information exchange. This statement is proof that your ideas of my non-occupied space are not really congruent with your unoccupied space. imho

Part of the proof is that my non-occupied space has a location and I told you where that is.

Nobody haves even the tinest bit idea of where your unoccupied space is.

I think your just muddling the communications for many replies now.

Whats the effort, unoccupied space contains nothing (I point out it hasn't location) and occupied space has stuff in it.

Yeah you still refuse to be more specific by offering as locations and specifically in regards to my comments that specified locations of both occupied space and non-occupied space.

So your just playing mind games the only obfusicate and muddle any possible significantly valid commmunication back-n-forth.

So how long if ever do we have to wait for you to actually tell us where is this occupied space and unoccupief space located? Ive been posting where in this thread. You keep evading and hiding from being clear and having clarity.

Again, your falling short of showing sincere desire to have meaingfule, clear, indepth and comprehensive disscussion. imho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Some quantum events happen at once so what. That was irrelevant to my comments.

Some events take time to occur and have many events that composed the larger event. I just think your not clear. Short quips often offer us little clarifying information. imho



Your still short changing the back-n-fort of information being disscusson i.e you dont really want to have and indepth and comprenhensive disscussion of the issue yo initiated and I responded to.


Ive made many efforts with much clarifying defintions, explanations etc.
Your rarely if ever ask me even one question regarding what I meant with this statement or word.

I.e. 99% you never asked. Here recently I was clear from the get go, I had no idea what your statements were alluding too..'whats the point'..and I clarified how your statements really do not make clear that you and i really disscussing the same circumstances with use of the words non-occupied, occupied and unoccupied.

Part of what entals that clarity of being on same page is addressing enough of the others ideas that we can know were on the same page.

You still have not done that, in the specifics Ive mentioned. Your continue to minimize your responses to short quips and do not really put much effort make clear that you know I mean, and you agree or not.

You appear to want to just misdirect and have the disscussion go on with each other not really on the same page.

There is no point in doing sol as there exists no exchange of significantly relevant and clear information. imho

You have good mind. However, you fall short a lot of fulfiling that function in clear and significant useful way. imho.

I'm very clear many times that non-occupied space is outside of Universe.

You never ever have made clear where eactly this unoccupied space is that you mention in reply and as inferrence that were on the same page.

If were on the same page, then you would have no problem clarifying where this unccupied space is. You do not so that leaves it unclear as to whether were on same page. Who knows? I sure dont cause you short change the information exchange.


Oh good, you finally want have a signficantly valid information exchange. This statement is proof that your ideas of my non-occupied space are not really congruent with your unoccupied space. imho

Part of the proof is that my non-occupied space has a location and I told you where that is.

Nobody haves even the tinest bit idea of where your unoccupied space is.

I think your just muddling the communications for many replies now.


Yeah you still refuse to be more specific by offering as locations and specifically in regards to my comments that specified locations of both occupied space and non-occupied space.

So your just playing mind games the only obfusicate and muddle any possible significantly valid commmunication back-n-forth.

So how long if ever do we have to wait for you to actually tell us where is this occupied space and unoccupief space located? Ive been posting where in this thread. You keep evading and hiding from being clear and having clarity.

Again, your falling short of showing sincere desire to have meaingfule, clear, indepth and comprehensive disscussion. imho

r6

If the space is located with respect to 'the universe' (for example), this relative positioning renders it occupied. In this sense, the occupied space of the universe becomes the singular reference for the unoccupied, therefore the occupied space becomes point like as embraced by the unoccupied, and it that sense, this singularity occupies the space.