Is there such a thing as a fixed constant?

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

This disscussion initiated with your use of word consequential, and I thought the word resulatant was likened to being a synonym.

I think you didnt care for that idea and made some obscure statement followed by a 'space event', and together your whole reply made no sense to me and only obfuscated my reply to you.

Check a dictionary Gem. consequential and resultant are like synonyms. Your space event comments were pretty much meaningless to me then as much of your statements since only muddle and obfuscate any disscussion with you.

I have been very clear where I stand and have consistent with my desripitive terminologies regarding our cosmological Universe.

Now here above,

1} you have never gone back to clarify what your space event was meant to reference and in what context,

2} you still do not address my comments directly as stated,

3} you lack desriptive terminology so your comments remain muddled. Ex you begin with .."if the space"...so what space are you refering too?

You dont appear to me, to want to be clear. You appear to me to only want to muddle your meanings.

Your "relative positioning" of universe makes no sense above. Universe does not have any relative position because there exists no other occupied space for it to relate too.

Universe as whole can only relate to its parts.

You dont acknowledge a finite, occupied space Universe, instead you state that .."the universe becomes the singular reference for unoccupied"....

You dont state space so were left to presume you mean what Ive stated for years, the our finite, occupied space Unvierse, is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space, ergo our Universe has no reference outside of itself, other than your "unoccupied".


Having clear desriptive disscussion with you is sometimes like pulling teeth It is struggle. Even so, you have more potential then many who post around here.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

This disscussion initiated with your use of word consequential, and I thought the word resulatant was likened to being a synonym.

I think you didnt care for that idea and made some obscure statement followed by a 'space event', and together your whole reply made no sense to me and only obfuscated my reply to you.

Check a dictionary Gem. consequential and resultant are like synonyms. Your space event comments were pretty much meaningless to me then as much of your statements since only muddle and obfuscate any disscussion with you.

I have been very clear where I stand and have consistent with my desripitive terminologies regarding our cosmological Universe.

Now here above,

1} you have never gone back to clarify what your space event was meant to reference and in what context,

2} you still do not address my comments directly as stated,

3} you lack desriptive terminology so your comments remain muddled. Ex you begin with .."if the space"...so what space are you refering too?

You dont appear to me, to want to be clear. You appear to me to only want to muddle your meanings.

Your "relative positioning" of universe makes no sense above. Universe does not have any relative position because there exists no other occupied space for it to relate too.

Universe as whole can only relate to its parts.

You dont acknowledge a finite, occupied space Universe, instead you state that .."the universe becomes the singular reference for unoccupied"....

You dont state space so were left to presume you mean what Ive stated for years, the our finite, occupied space Unvierse, is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space, ergo our Universe has no reference outside of itself, other than your "unoccupied".


Having clear desriptive disscussion with you is sometimes like pulling teeth It is struggle. Even so, you have more potential then many who post around here.

r6

Sure I clarified it by saying it isn't a timely cause - effect. It's simultaneous, or momentary.

I said like three times that I'm talking about unoccupied space. I elaborated on that saying it is devoid of content, has no distance component or even location.

You said non-occupied space is outside the universe, that it embraces the universe. I pointed out that you are using the universe as a singular reference for the non occupied space. How's that not relative?

I speak clearly and concisely, but I have to say things three times at least before it gets through.

[Kerubiel]

time, motion, is made and requires both life and death. something and nothing.. the nothing is the free space where the something may be placed. as darkness, or void is where light shines into. death releases and frees the 'occupied' existence allowing for it to be freed, so that a 'new day', or new season, may be met. the cycle of change which perpetuates existence into infinity. now you have 1 day, one life, becoming two, and creating diversity, direction n choice of which way to go. now unoccupied space is as an empty black field where any crop may be planted. it is empty,with potential to be filled with anything, it is free space. however the secret here may be seen in the color black, or the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.. black has every colour within it, simultaneously. empty, while full. it math, addition, and subtraction. at the source of such creation n destruction lies eternity, every possible outcome made manifest. the free space is where we choose our outcome. we occupy it with our choices, our beliefs, our awareness, our knowledge, our life. it is the collection of God. the question to be or not to be?

[r6r6]

Gem-- You said non-occupied space is outside the universe, that it embraces the universe.

our finite, occupied space UniVerse is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space is closer to Ive stated in this thread and many others.

In your last post your attempted to restate my concept with more words and more muddle approach my above given concept/scenario.

Far simple to have just replied directly to my statement--- many emails ago if not twice or more posted --with your acknowledge, validation or non-validation of the concept.

I pointed out that you are using the universe as a singular reference for the non occupied space. How's that not relative?

Non-occupied space is a comparing or perhaps reference, it does not have a line-of-relationship because it is energyless, not physical, has not temperature, no mass etc.....

A line-of-relationship is inherently and occupied space integrity--- ex any bosonic force ---operating between two other occupied space fermionic particles.

I speak clearly and concisely, but I have to say things three times at least before it gets through.

I disagree. You repeatedly gave short quips regarding your unoccupied, then or space or space event, or unoccupied space and it wasnt until your last post that you actually gave some additional desripitve terminologies to show that actually do grasp something I had already stated, with less word, more concisely and more clearly.( see opening statements above in this post that address this ).

Your basically slow to get on boards with some obviously rational, logical common sense concepts Ive been posting around here for year or more.

I applaud your effort to make an attempt, irrespective of how feeble and muddled it may be at times.

So it appears you may actually grasp one of many concepts Ive posted regarding ..."if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then our Universe is embraced by macro-infinite, non-occupied space"....


What you have not yet done, is actually validate/confirm or not,that concept/scenario i.e. do you agree with it.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

our finite, occupied space UniVerse is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space is closer to Ive stated in this thread and many others.

In your last post your attempted to restate my concept with more words and more muddle approach my above given concept/scenario.

Far simple to have just replied directly to my statement--- many emails ago if not twice or more posted --with your acknowledge, validation or non-validation of the concept.


Non-occupied space is a comparing or perhaps reference, it does not have a line-of-relationship because it is energyless, not physical, has not temperature, no mass etc.....

A line-of-relationship is inherently and occupied space integrity--- ex any bosonic force ---operating between two other occupied space fermionic particles.




I disagree. You repeatedly gave short quips regarding your unoccupied, then or space or space event, or unoccupied space and it wasnt until your last post that you actually gave some additional desripitve terminologies to show that actually do grasp something I had already stated, with less word, more concisely and more clearly.( see opening statements above in this post that address this ).

Your basically slow to get on boards with some obviously rational, logical common sense concepts Ive been posting around here for year or more.

I applaud your effort to make an attempt, irrespective of how feeble and muddled it may be at times.

So it appears you may actually grasp one of many concepts Ive posted regarding ..."if we live in a finite, occupied space Universe, then our Universe is embraced by macro-infinite, non-occupied space"....


What you have not yet done, is actually validate/confirm or not,that concept/scenario i.e. do you agree with it.

r6

I usually conceptualise using a geometric base, so if you refer the the universe as a singular entity, I represent that as point like, and then you say there is an infinite space beyond that finite one, and because the relationship is dual, finite 'occupied space' space is necessarily infinitesimal by relation - thus is pointlike in geometric terms. The other conception I make is within fractal geometry where a finite space can be enclosed by an infinite boundary of the lower dimension - EG, the Kosh snowflake' finite area is enclosed by an infinitely long line. Therefore, your theory is only conceivable as a fractal.

[r6r6]

Gem--I usually conceptualise using a geometric base, so if you refer the the universe as a singular entity, I represent that as point like,

I say finite, occupied space UniVerse is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space.

Uni = one( 1 ) verse.

You have brought the the term singular entity into the disscussion, along with singularity in a previous post, not me.

When you actually want to address my comments, specifically as stated.....

and then you say there is an infinite space beyond that finite one,

I said macro-infinite....ergo again, when you actually want to address my comments specifically as stated.......

and because the relationship is dual,

I didnt say there exists a relationship between occupied space Universe and non-occupied space. You said that. Not me.

a line-of-relationship can only exist between two occupied space integrities. Non-occupied space can not have integral cause there no parts to become integral as one.

finite 'occupied space' space is necessarily infinitesimal by relation - thus is pointlike in geometric terms.

You say..."finite 'occupied space' space is neccessarily infinitesimal by relation - thus is pointlinke in geometric terms"....

This makes absolutely no rational, logical common sense from the get go Gem. you state in the same sentence a finite space is infinite. Huh? Isnt that called contradictory staemte Yeah it is. Not even an oxymoron.

The other conception I make is within fractal geometry where a finite space can be enclosed by an infinite boundary of the lower dimension - EG, the Kosh snowflake' finite area is enclosed by an infinitely long line. Therefore, your theory is only conceivable as a fractal.

When you actually want to address my comments as specifically stated, --- which you mostly avoid doing like the plague --and when you want to truly understand that it is non-sense to say finite space is infinite,

then maybe I could go off some irrelevant fractal tangent with you.

You need to address my comments as specifically stated, and confirm, or invalidate them. You rarely do that.

Ive made very clear and well thought out statments that you really give little credence too and try to rewrite how percive what I stated, using more words, more muddled terminolgies, or here above as contradictory statement and irrelevant asides. imho

Address my comments as stated and confirm/validate or invalidate them.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I say finite, occupied space UniVerse is embraced by macro-infinite non-occupied space.

Uni = one( 1 ) verse.

You have brought the the term singular entity into the disscussion, along with singularity in a previous post, not me.

When you actually want to address my comments, specifically as stated.....


I said macro-infinite....ergo again, when you actually want to address my comments specifically as stated.......



I didnt say there exists a relationship between occupied space Universe and non-occupied space. You said that. Not me.

"Macro embraces micro" your words. How is that not a relationship?

a line-of-relationship can only exist between two occupied space integrities. Non-occupied space can not have integral cause there no parts to become integral as one.

You say..."finite 'occupied space' space is neccessarily infinitesimal by relation - thus is pointlinke in geometric terms"....

This makes absolutely no rational, logical common sense from the get go Gem. you state in the same sentence a finite space is infinite. Huh? Isnt that called contradictory staemte Yeah it is. Not even an oxymoron.

As the infinite goes on forever, any finite portion is infinitesimal by proportion. Only when we assert limitations can a 'size' be established. This can't be done with a dual relationship.

When you actually want to address my comments as specifically stated, --- which you mostly avoid doing like the plague --and when you want to truly understand that it is non-sense to say finite space is infinite,

then maybe I could go off some irrelevant fractal tangent with you.

You need to address my comments as specifically stated, and confirm, or invalidate them. You rarely do that.

Your comments are a made up story using your own peculiar jargon, and they don't have a logical basis.

Ive made very clear and well thought out statments that you really give little credence too and try to rewrite how percive what I stated, using more words, more muddled terminolgies, or here above as contradictory statement and irrelevant asides. imho

Address my comments as stated and confirm/validate or invalidate them.

r6

[r6r6]

Gem--"Macro embraces micro" your words. How is that not a relationship?

I dont recall saying that. Where do you see that comment by me?

That is a conceptual relationship. Here again you do not appear to have any concept of cosmological heirarchy, much less and understanding of the one that exists and Ive laid out clearly in many thread here at SF.

1)Metaphysical-1 = mind/intellect/concepts
------------------------------------------------------
2) macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3) finite, occupied space.

Your going to be operating in the dark--- to some degree ---untill you can grasp a cosmic heirarchy from the get go, becuase, all else falls within that wholistic set.

As the infinite goes on forever, any finite portion is infinitesimal by proportion. Only when we assert limitations can a 'size' be established. This can't be done with a dual relationship.

Macro-micro in of itself is must mind/intellect concept.

Macro-micro infinite non-occupied space does exist.

Finite occupied space does exist also.

Until you can grasp the signficant cosmic differrence of these three, you going to be operating in the dark, to whatever degree of comprehension.

Your comments are a made up story using your own peculiar jargon, and they don't have a logical basis.

When you actually have any rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments, as stated, they stand as facts and speculations, based on my beliefs and on rational, logical common sense.

Occupied space exists as fact.

Metaphysical-1 exists as fact

Truly non-occupied space is what I believe exists based on rational, logical common sense, that, we live in a finite, occupied space Universe.

When you actually your alledge "jargon", that word you dont understand please share and I will gladly tell you what it means.

The only word Ive heard yo mention that may fit into that catagory is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concepts.

So there is that word, with added dash( - )1 and the descriptive terminology that Ive always added 99% of the time for those like you who need assistence with relativly simple word that has been around for many years, and found in many dictioanries.

I dont think my jargon is your biggest problem............

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I dont recall saying that. Where do you see that comment by me?

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

That is a conceptual relationship. Here again you do not appear to have any concept of cosmological heirarchy, much less and understanding of the one that exists and Ive laid out clearly in many thread here at SF.

1)Metaphysical-1 = mind/intellect/concepts
------------------------------------------------------
2) macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3) finite, occupied space.

Your going to be operating in the dark--- to some degree ---untill you can grasp a cosmic heirarchy from the get go, becuase, all else falls within that wholistic set.

What's to grasp? This ^ is what you say. There is no sequence or logic to it, so it's merely assumed.

Macro-micro in of itself is must mind/intellect concept.

Macro-micro infinite non-occupied space does exist.

That's assumed.

Finite occupied space does exist also.

Also assumed. The universe may not have a boundary.

Until you can grasp the signficant cosmic differrence of these three, you going to be operating in the dark, to whatever degree of comprehension.

I 'grasp it' but I know it's merely assumed. There is no logic to follow.

When you actually have any rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate my comments, as stated, they stand as facts and speculations, based on my beliefs and on rational, logical common sense.

Occupied space exists as fact.

That's observable. We don't know if it's finite or not. You assume it is finite.

Metaphysical-1 exists as fact

If that means conceptual thought, I agree.

Truly non-occupied space is what I believe exists based on rational, logical common sense, that, we live in a finite, occupied space Universe.

That's what I'm saying. You believe it - it's assumed.

When you actually your alledge "jargon", that word you dont understand please share and I will gladly tell you what it means.

I don't care what it means - use a common English term which people already understand.

The only word Ive heard yo mention that may fit into that catagory is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concepts.

Why not just say 'intellectual concepts'. I know what that is already.

So there is that word, with added dash( - )1 and the descriptive terminology that Ive always added 99% of the time for those like you who need assistence with relativly simple word that has been around for many years, and found in many dictioanries.

I dont think my jargon is your biggest problem............

[r6r6]

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.

What's to grasp? This ^ is what you say. There is no sequence or logic to it, so it's merely assumed.

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

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 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