Quantum vaccume fluctuations

[r6r6]

Shivani Devi---I think you have me confused with a totally different member. Shivatar is a male and a whole different person to me.
Shivani Devi is a female and she IS me.

Oh Yes I see now my error So sorry. I saw you both have same icon both names began with Shi so I jumped the gun.

Please read and use my user-name and address me properly before you ask Gem to use a dictionary.

Sure thing now that you have corrected my error Shivani-devi.


My apologies once again.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Oh Yes I see now my error So sorry. I saw you both have same icon both names began with Shi so I jumped the gun.





Sure thing now that you have corrected my error Shivani-devi.


My apologies once again.

Apology accepted.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

No, non-occupied space does not fluctuate. Only occupied space can fluctuate.


A 2x4 piece of occupied space lumber can fluctuate because of variations in moisture content in the wood.

Non-occupied space does not fluctuate.

Occupied space can only exist outside of our finite, occupied space Universe. These are the fundamentals at top of the cosmic hierarchy.


Drop the mind games Gem, you know very well that before that specific post with the specific error I have been very clear for years and many posts here at SP what occupied space is.


How many times are you going to beat a dead horse Gem? I made a mental error when typing. Get over it


Yeah, I have been very clear on that and you have now agreed with that at least twice.


Duh yeah. And you have agreed at least twice now. It is self evident based on what we observe and dictionary definitions of words stuff, occupied and space. Use a dictionary Gem.
Where is the illogic? It is self evident based on how we define those words. Use a dictionary Gem.



Logic is a pathway of thought that you have lost track of in regards to words stuff, occupied and space and their definitions. Use a dictionary GEm.


It is not only plausible the concept, scenario, phenomena, state-of-affairs, reality it is obvious, logical sensible conclusion that you agree with then you go off on some bonkers "logic" diversion. Use a dictionary Gem.



Use a dictionary Gem. Stuff, occupied and space have defintions.


A room is used as a bedroom only if there is a bed in that room or people sleep in that room.

Stuff, occupied and space have definitions that all correlate logically, inherently, self-evidently obvious etc.


Logic is pathway of thought based on what we experience, and put into words to communicated to self and/or others what we experienced.





We experience that garbage occupies space and I use words to communicate that fact to others, some of which refuse to acknowledge and go off on some irrelevant divergent topics, or,

agree and then go off on some irrelevant divergent topics, or,

agree and accept the logical pathways of thougth via words humans have created and placed in dictionarys.
Ive been on your geometric pathways a year or more back, and I forget the specifics but we did not agree on something as best as I can recall.



We can go there again ---in another thread-- but metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not a space. Neither non-occupied or occupied space. Do you grasp that Gem?


Ive been very clear on this fact for years around here. Here above and the last few posts Ive been clearly disscussing occupied space ergo garbage/trash etc and they are more than just a concept

I will be happy to discuss geometrical concepts with you ---in another thread--- along with can we have can we have non-occupied spaces between occupied spaces.

Geometry is basically constructed with points, which in themselves do not occupy space. They are 0D. For example, a circle defines all points equidistant from a central point. The circle takes up space depending on that distance by forming a boundary between internal and external space. When we calculate the area of the circle, we calculate the internal space. We do not calculate what space the diameter or the central point occupies. In this way the circle itself only defines boundary conditions and it only occupies one dimension of space (possible motion is opposed-directional) The space within the circle is 2D, though... because the relationship between 'non-linear points' renders n dimensional space.


The simplest space is 'between' 2 points, being 1 D. The relationship between 3 points is the minimum for 2D space, and by formulating an equation P (points) = D (dimension) + 1, P is the number of vertices of a simplex in any given dimension. In our 3D space, the tetrahedron simplex therefore has 4 points.


So you see in the above I didn't claim the 3D simplex has four vertices, because we can see that it's self-evidently true, and call that logic . I outlined a general truth about simplexes in any number of dimensions. I therefore know that a a simplex in 1000 dimensional space has 1001 vertices. That, my friend, is logic.

But when we do so, we have to begin with a common agreement that those are three distinctly differrent aspects and once again for umpteenth time Ive laid them out clearly for your or others to contemplate/ponder;

1} spirit-1, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of space, time concepts God, Universe, dogs, triangles etc,

-------------line-of-demarcation---------------

2} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} occupied space ie;

.....3-2 } physical/energy ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,

...3-3 } gravity,

...3-4 } dark energy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff = Occupied Space Is a Logical Minimal Brainer

Stuff/Occupied Space is 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 in the above.

Ok, so where's the logic?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

R8 posted a "maths" here recently?


I think Shivitar is very confused person who has very little rational logical common sense to offer us.
------------------------------------


Lets do an experiement and find out if Shivitar actually even knows what a "maths" formula is;

Linearly 1 + 1 = 4.

Synergetically 1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles of same shape, size and degree of angles.

How does that work?

Lets try another one on Shivitar.

3 + 3 = 6 linearly

3, 60 degree angles + 3, 60 degree angles = 12, 60 degree angles synergetically.

Does he grasp any of these actual "maths"?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

R8 posted a "maths" here recently?

R8=R6 + 2 teehee

I think Shivitar is very confused person who has very little rational logical common sense to offer us.
------------------------------------


Lets do an experiement and find out if Shivitar actually even knows what a "maths" formula is;

Linearly 1 + 1 = 4.

Synergetically 1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles of same shape, size and degree of angles.

Lets try another one on Shivitar.

3 + 3 = 6 linearly

3, 60 degree angles + 3, 60 degree angles = 12, 60 degree angles synergetically.

Does he grasp any of these actual "maths"?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

Geometry is basically constructed with points,
Ok, so where's the logic?

Yeah, I can and do say the same for your comments as they and your going no where Gem.


You did not address any of my comments specifically and still going off our your geometric tangent that I stated I happy to do again with you in differrent thread.



Yeah where is your logic specific to what I stated. You offered none.


Stuff = occupied space. Minimal no brainer that agree to then says no logic and I did give logic that you ignored.


And I address many of your comment specifically as stated. Your really just blowing a divergent smoke screen because you actually have no rational logic that explains away stuff = occupied space.


I have no time for your mind games and that is what smoke screen divegency attempts to do. You only want to diverge from truth and the words and definitions we use to communicate those truths.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Yeah, I can and do say the same for your comments as they and your going no where Gem.


You did not address any of my comments specifically and still going off our your geometric tangent that I stated I happy to do again with you in differrent thread.



Yeah where is your logic specific to what I stated. You offered none.


Stuff = occupied space. Minimal no brainer that agree to then says no logic and I did give logic that you ignored.


And I address many of your comment specifically as stated. Your really just blowing a divergent smoke screen because you actually have no rational logic that explains away stuff = occupied space.


I have no time for your mind games and that is what smoke screen divegency attempts to do. You only want to diverge from truth and the words and definitions we use to communicate those truths.

Ok, so if I say the 3D tet has 4 vertices because it's self evident; that IS NOT logic. I demonstrate logic by outlining how 2 points are NEEDED to form 1D space. And because that is a NEED, the same principle applies to any number of dimensions. That IS logic.



That is why saying stuff ocupies space is self evident, but it isn't logic. If you do not present any logic, then I can't address the consistency thereof. I can only say, 'OK, so where's the logic?'


Likewise if I say, 'the 3D simplex has 4 vertices,' that is self-evident, but you could only say, "Ok, so what?"

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Gem

How does that work?

I also notice your question remains unanswered (I did not get it either).

I have actually given up because as soon as something is posted that r6 cannot answer, he goes on the defensive and starts attacking.

I only hope the OP is satisfied with my explanation, because it's stuff like this which scares people away from visiting the thread again with a "what the hell have I done?"

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Yeah, I can and do say the same for your comments as they and your going no where Gem.


You did not address any of my comments specifically and still going off our your geometric tangent that I stated I happy to do again with you in differrent thread.



Yeah where is your logic specific to what I stated. You offered none.


Stuff = occupied space. Minimal no brainer that agree to then says no logic and I did give logic that you ignored.


And I address many of your comment specifically as stated. Your really just blowing a divergent smoke screen because you actually have no rational logic that explains away stuff = occupied space.

Of course not. It's self evident, but my example of the circle did show how space can be occupied in one dimension, and necessarily render an entirely unoccupied 2D space. Hence my discourse on occupied and unoccupied has a logical structure to it, and isn't just stating the obvious and/or a definition of terms.


Now lets see if you can logically explain how your triangle sum works. I bet you can't.

I have no time for your mind games and that is what smoke screen divegency attempts to do. You only want to diverge from truth and the words and definitions we use to communicate those truths.

[Shivani Devi]

Can I be a smart-alec here? why not. =)

Fractally, 1+1 = 8



and...3+4 = 36

*please refer to my avatar for further information.