Quantum vaccume fluctuations

[r6r6]

Gem--It could be vertex vertices or even vertexes in common math lexicon.

Yeah we both agree on whats common. I'm also considerate of what is outside the box of common. I repeat again, two lines meeting, indefining a polygon, is distinctly differrent than three lines meeting that commonly to define polyhedra.


You appear to care less. I do care in differrentiation and want labels that can be used to make those distinctions

Fine, you'll have to define your terms every time you talk to someone, though, but they will wonder why you don't just use the established terms.

That is nothing new for me, but I used common terms also, You appear to miss or ignore that fact also.

All lines of any shape are 1D

Huh} I never said a line was not 1D. Your confused or misunderstand etc.

Fair enough yippion=angle point and Nippion=end points of lines.

I dunno about fair, it is just some terms many years ago adopted to use in identifying those differrences to my self and others.


___ = terminal end points{ nippions } nip something early on in the bud.



V = two terminal end points and 1 yippion, or nodal event point{ yippion }


Y = 1 vertex or vertexion and and three terminal end points

Oh I'd agree with the explanation, but triangles are polygons and a continuous line isn't.

I didnt give you Fullers explanation so you cant agree with it. Your confused again. Maybe tired.


I said nothing about a polygon being a line or a line being polygon. You must be tired.

Yes, implied. But strictly speaking, still a line.

Yes agree, a line ergo a coat hanger has two end points and can be brought close to defining shape of circle ellispse or triangle.


So can 6 tooth picks{ 6 lines } be arranged to show two same size triangles.

I don't up my own word for coat hangers. I just use the same word as everyone else.

Nor have I done any allededge "up" with a traingle. I really have no idea why your talking like this now. ?????

I'm familiar with 'terminals' but not 'terminal end points'.

Point of termination as in your employment at this establisment has come to its end point. Use dictionary and see if you dont find various definitions for that word "point".

Words have different meanings when used in different contexts.

Yeah I pointed that out to early in that post. You missed or ignored it.



point/dot/node/event/crossings/intersection/joint/knuckle/hub/vertex/energy center/etc

line/edge/chord/trajectory/vector/relationship etc

face/hedron/surface/opening/no-event ergo no-vents/etc

If make up your own words, it sounds like jibberish to everyone else.

See above those words are all English except no-vents.


If I say vertex/vertexion/vertices/vertexes/vertexia it does not take a PhD to grasp what is being talked about.


If you have a specific example of where I stated jiberrish and you didnt understand then you need to state such. You have none done that. So if you do in future please do and not wait till some days later and accuse me of something with no evidence for such.

Ok, I understand the implication even if in geometry it's not a triangle. It's perfectly logical in principle none-the-less.

Yeah its called being intuitive or telepathic or being on the same page if we have to differrent books written by differrent authors we can still come to agreement or understanding.


If not then and that keeps happening repeatedly then it can become frustrating rapidly. Textual communication can be diffcult for sure.


Some people or more intuitive with some people than others. Its called chemistry

The rules are 3 sides 3 vertices. If these rules aren't followed it's not a triangle. If we're taking outside of the geometric context, then a looser approximation is fine and I understand what is implied.

Well Gem I could play daffy-duck-difficult and say that your above "sides" is techbically faces/hedra/surfaces, but I know you mean edges/chords/lines.


Agreed if the two terminal end points of a hanger are not touching or welded together for five days and holds together under weight of and elephant then it is not a triangle or at least not a stable triangular structure.


Lets not get to nicky picky difficult, OK, unless there is valid reason to do so. Ok? I understand being accurate and I understand cosmic cost accounting leaves no stone unturned over etc.

A point is 0D.

Yes and no. Is that dot after the word no a point? Sure it is for many people


Is this row of points............................................ of course they are.


Can we have row of pointed pens or pencils, Do pens and pencils have a point? Is it zerro dimension.


A concept line is also oD because it is a concept not and actual occupied space. Only occupied space truly is has a dimension.


Is a point 0Dimension, yes and no.

When we represent a point we draw a dot, the dot has dimension, but the point which the dot represents does not. Google 'definition of a point in math'

Yes and no. Context is everything

I've never heard of a VE hexagon, so I googled it and there's no information there. Are you just making it up?

I said VE's four hexagons, so above your left out the exact comment by me and I explained all of this two posts ago See message #96 and your replied to it. Here again is that text missed or ignored or forgot etc.



...."Ive told you all of this above in past year or two as well as others around here. The surface area of the four equaltoral, 2D, hexagonal planes of the spherical 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, equal, the surface area{ event horizon } of the VE/cubo-octahedron."


VE = Vector Equilibrium aka cubo-octahedron and have made this clear in so many threads here at SF over the years. Sorry if I was not clear.



However Gem this is another reason I dont want to go off into 4D or more with you or others because you and many others still not familiar with some of the most common and significant 3D polyhedra ex the 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, that contains 5-fold icosahedron, octahedron, tetrahedron, double sine-wave, Euclidean positive and negative curvature, basic quadra-pedal patterns for fish and cetacceans

I suspect you mean Vector Energy, but that's just a stab in the dark (and energy isn't a vector).

See above quote from messsage #96 and again sorry you that not familiar with the 4-fold cubo-octahedron being defined by four hexagons and is called Vector Equilibrum.

You lay it our as defined terms and I ask you, so what?

So you need to grasp the three primary kinds of space if you want to have and intelligent conversation about space. You really need to read my cosmic trinity and address it as presented.


Like others you ignore it like it was a deadly snake. Go figure.

On the contrary, I made 2 different geometric expressions of occupied and unoccupied space. I pointed out a physical example for the former (marbles on a table) and I explained how a point is related to indivisible fundamental particles.

Huh? Conceptual geometry does is not occupied space. Here above your now saying a conceptual 0D point is now a marble.


You really need to go read my cosmic trinity and get back to me. Start with some basic principles that cover all spatial aspects first and see where agree or not.


Start with the whole GEm and then nor parts{ marble quanta etc } can be left out of our disscussion.

Sure a geometric conceptual model is only true in the physical world in that it says something trueabout it.

Huh? That is irrelevant to what I stated. I dont think you grasp what I stated, or you dont agree so go off elsewhere or what exactly your trying to do I dont know. Here it is again, YOu need to read in address it as stated, not go off on some irrelevancy.



.."A concept of space is not space ergo a concept cannot be occupied or non-occupied. DO you understand/grasp/comprehend this Gem. It is important that you can learn how to make these ....snip.. distinctions."...

It's filled with particles, but only in the sense that quantum field theory describes. Pervaded by fields. The particles you refer to are 'ripples' in the field. They are not 'little things' as such.

You above state it is filled with particles. In response to what I stated and I did not state particles as you here above suggest.



Here is what I stated, no particle in that statement.
..."The space between moon and Earth is filled with stuff ergo is not a true vacuum.:....


And I didnt state little things but neutrinos are little and have little mass if any. Long wave radiation has less energy ergo little energy compared to higher frequency radiation.


But again, your loosing and not addressing the more generalized types of space that covers all particles big or tiny. You and many others around here need to start with the greatest whole set ergo ultra-small, micro-small small, medio, large macro-large, and ultra-large are all with the Cosmic Trinity.


That is where you need to begin and address with sincerity. All inclusive is the place to start in order to have intelligent and meaningful communications.

Well intent is the essence of morality, sure. However, 'positive shaped gravity', for one example, doesn't mean anything to anyone but you - because you just made it up. How can you assert that is common sense, let alone true?

Ok so you made some attempt to read the Cosmic Trinity --short version of the Cosmic Heirachial Outline and you dont seem to have a problem with the cosmic trinity until you get the 67th line of text regardin gravity.


DO you understand and agree with the first six lines of text? Yes? no?


Whether gravity is positive shaped or not, is more of a side note, to the overall outline and that is what we have to come to some commonality of agreement with or not so we know where coming from in relation to our most wholistically cosmic viewpoints.


If we can not come to understand via the cosmic trinity or cosmic heirarchy then the increases the chances of speaking past each other much more of the time. Not on the same page, so to speak.




There exists three primary kinds of space aka Cosmic Trinity

1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of space, God, Universe, Time, Dogs Cars etc,

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

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space,

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,

....3-4} Spirit-4, negative shaped dark energy )( also occupied space.

These concepts do not require PhD or 'B__S', they require people of moral character to sincerely consider them as stated.

Few to none have ever done so in any forum or group I'm in. I believe mostly it is ego based blindness to rational, logical common sense truths.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Yeah we both agree on whats common. I'm also considerate of what is outside the box of common. I repeat again, two lines meeting, indefining a polygon, is distinctly differrent than three lines meeting that commonly to define polyhedra.


You appear to care less. I do care in differrentiation and want labels that can be used to make those distinctions






That is nothing new for me, but I used common terms also, You appear to miss or ignore that fact also.




Huh} I never said a line was not 1D. Your confused or misunderstand etc.

This is context with saying the 'triangle' wasn't connected, which means the initial shape was one dimensional, and not 2D.

I dunno about fair, it is just some terms many years ago adopted to use in identifying those differrences to my self and others.


___ = terminal end points{ nippions } nip something early on in the bud.



V = two terminal end points and 1 yippion, or nodal event point{ yippion }


Y = 1 vertex or vertexion and and three terminal end points





I didnt give you Fullers explanation so you cant agree with it. Your confused again. Maybe tired.

All he has to say is it's not connected, and I'd be like, Ok.

I said nothing about a polygon being a line or a line being polygon. You must be tired.

Well, really you said something was a triangle (which is a polygon) when you were actually talking about a line.

Yes agree, a line ergo a coat hanger has two end points and can be brought close to defining shape of circle ellispse or triangle.


So can 6 tooth picks{ 6 lines } be arranged to show two same size triangles.

Yes, provided the 'rules' for triangles are met.

Nor have I done any allededge "up" with a traingle. I really have no idea why your talking like this now. ?????


Point of termination as in your employment at this establisment has come to its end point. Use dictionary and see if you dont find various definitions for that word "point".

Meanings change according to the context.

Yeah I pointed that out to early in that post. You missed or ignored it.



point/dot/node/event/crossings/intersection/joint/knuckle/hub/vertex/energy center/etc

line/edge/chord/trajectory/vector/relationship etc

face/hedron/surface/opening/no-event ergo no-vents/etc



See above those words are all English except no-vents.


If I say vertex/vertexion/vertices/vertexes/vertexia it does not take a PhD to grasp what is being talked about.

A PHD would have no idea what vertexion or vertexia means, but would certainly understand the other 3.

If you have a specific example of where I stated jiberrish and you didnt understand then you need to state such. You have none done that. So if you do in future please do and not wait till some days later and accuse me of something with no evidence for such.

Well, if I just made up new words it would sound like jibberish. That goes without saying.

Yeah its called being intuitive or telepathic or being on the same page if we have to different books written by differrent authors we can still come to agreement or understanding.


If not then and that keeps happening repeatedly then it can become frustrating rapidly. Textual communication can be diffcult for sure.


Some people or more intuitive with some people than others. Its called chemistry




Well Gem I could play daffy-duck-difficult and say that your above "sides" is techbically faces/hedra/surfaces, but I know you mean edges/chords/lines.

In reference to polygons and polyhedra, 'sides' and 'edges' are often used interchangably, but I believe that strictly speaking, 'side' is more to do with polygons, whereas 'edge' refers to a line where two faces of polyhedra meet. EG. It's more accurate to say 'sides' of a triangle and 'edges' of a tetrahedron. However, no one cares and people just use them interchangeably. "Sides" does NOT mean faces or surfaces, ever!

Agreed if the two terminal end points of a hanger are not touching or welded together for five days and holds together under weight of and elephant then it is not a triangle or at least not a stable triangular structure.


Lets not get to nicky picky difficult, OK, unless there is valid reason to do so. Ok? I understand being accurate and I understand cosmic cost accounting leaves no stone unturned over etc.





Yes and no. Is that dot after the word no a point? Sure it is for many people


Is this row of points............................................ of course they are.

I informed you what a point is, and if you need confirmation look it up.

Can we have row of pointed pens or pencils, Do pens and pencils have a point? Is it zerro dimension.

(crickets)

A concept line is also oD because it is a concept not and actual occupied space. Only occupied space truly is has a dimension.

Lines are 1D.

Is a point 0Dimension, yes and no.

In geometry a point is 0D. The point of a needle is not a geometrical point (why do I find myself stating the most obvious of things?)

Yes and no. Context is everything





I said VE's four hexagons, so above your left out the exact comment by me and I explained all of this two posts ago See message #96 and your replied to it. Here again is that text missed or ignored or forgot etc.

Oh, so you did, my apologies.

...."Ive told you all of this above in past year or two as well as others around here. The surface area of the four equaltoral, 2D, hexagonal planes of the spherical 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, equal, the surface area{ event horizon } of the VE/cubo-octahedron."


VE = Vector Equilibrium aka cubo-octahedron and have made this clear in so many threads here at SF over the years. Sorry if I was not clear.



However Gem this is another reason I dont want to go off into 4D or more with you or others because you and many others still not familiar with some of the most common and significant 3D polyhedra ex the 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, that contains 5-fold icosahedron, octahedron, tetrahedron, double sine-wave, Euclidean positive and negative curvature, basic quadra-pedal patterns for fish and cetacceans

You are right. I don't understand that.

See above quote from messsage #96 and again sorry you that not familiar with the 4-fold cubo-octahedron being defined by four hexagons and is called Vector Equilibrum.





So you need to grasp the three primary kinds of space if you want to have and intelligent conversation about space. You really need to read my cosmic trinity and address it as presented.

All I've seen is you say the term means that, and the next one means something else. Of course I understand your definitions. But so what?

Like others you ignore it like it was a deadly snake. Go figure.


Huh? Conceptual geometry does is not occupied space. Here above your now saying a conceptual 0D point is now a marble.

I said geometry says something true about marbles.


A point is like saying, it exists but has no size at all in any way. 0D.

You really need to go read my cosmic trinity and get back to me. Start with some basic principles that cover all spatial aspects first and see where agree or not.


Start with the whole GEm and then nor parts{ marble quanta etc } can be left out of our disscussion.






Huh? That is irrelevant to what I stated. I dont think you grasp what I stated, or you dont agree so go off elsewhere or what exactly your trying to do I dont know. Here it is again, YOu need to read in address it as stated, not go off on some irrelevancy.



.."A concept of space is not space ergo a concept cannot be occupied or non-occupied. DO you understand/grasp/comprehend this Gem. It is important that you can learn how to make these ....snip.. distinctions."...




You above state it is filled with particles. In response to what I stated and I did not state particles as you here above suggest.

I thought I explained something about particles being fields that pervade all space rather than 'little things' that occupy space, and how it's not particularly accurate to say the vacuum is occupied.

Here is what I stated, no particle in that statement.
..."The space between moon and Earth is filled with stuff ergo is not a true vacuum.:....


And I didn't state little things but neutrinos are little and have little mass if any. Long wave radiation has less energy ergo little energy compared to higher frequency radiation.


But again, your loosing and not addressing the more generalized types of space that covers all particles big or tiny. You and many others around here need to start with the greatest whole set ergo ultra-small, micro-small small, medio, large macro-large, and ultra-large are all with the Cosmic Trinity.


That is where you need to begin and address with sincerity. All inclusive is the place to start in order to have intelligent and meaningful communications.







Ok so you made some attempt to read the Cosmic Trinity --short version of the Cosmic Heirachial Outline and you dont seem to have a problem with the cosmic trinity until you get the 67th line of text regardin gravity.


DO you understand and agree with the first six lines of text? Yes? no?

Yes

Whether gravity is positive shaped or not, is more of a side note, to the overall outline and that is what we have to come to some commonality of agreement with or not so we know where coming from in relation to our most wholistically cosmic viewpoints.


If we can not come to understand via the cosmic trinity or cosmic heirarchy then the increases the chances of speaking past each other much more of the time. Not on the same page, so to speak.




There exists three primary kinds of space aka Cosmic Trinity

1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of space, God, Universe, Time, Dogs Cars etc,

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

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space,

3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space,

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,

....3-4} Spirit-4, negative shaped dark energy )( also occupied space.

These concepts do not require PhD or 'B__S', they require people of moral character to sincerely consider them as stated.

I think you're just making arbitrary definitions, and PHD's do not understand dark matter, dark energy, or even gravity - they just made it up because they don't understand what they have observed to be true. These are only conceptual paradigms, at least for now.

Few to none have ever done so in any forum or group I'm in. I believe mostly it is ego based blindness to rational, logical common sense truths.

[r6r6]

Gem-- "Sides" does NOT mean faces or surfaces, ever!

Two sides of a coin, piece paper, box house, Sunny side dark side etc, North face south face.


Humans making new words all the time cause where paying attention to context. With onset of internet combining parts of two words is used more and more often.


Stephen Colbert is a wordsmith master at this. There are whole comic pages of words on the net meant to funny because of their combinations.


If people are going to remain to serious and never step out side box of commonality they will not 'get it', not find the humor.


If a human familiar with geometry can not intuit the relationship between some sets of words, there lacking intuitive abilities.




vertexex/vertexion/vertices/vertexia/points/dots/nodes/nodal events/crossings/intersections/junctions/joints/knuckles/hubs/energy center/etc

lines/edges/chords/trajectories/vectors/relationships/appendages/ etc

face/hedron/surface/opening/no-events ergo no-vents/

I informed you what a point is, and if you need confirmation look it up.

I stated before and again. It is concepts and all concept have zero dimension ergo we present our metaphysical-1 points of contention, of information or disgareement etc.


A physical point is at minimum 3D ergo the minimal point can be no less than a tetrahedron ergo point has a volume.
A 2D point is aka presented as a dot. A row of points or dots...............


Pencil/pen comes to a point.

(crickets)

They will start making noise around here next month.

Lines are 1D.

Concepts have no diemension. Lines in mathematics are 1D. Lines presented to us visually are 2D but all physically visual lines are occupied space ergo 3D at minimum because there composed of quanta, atoms, if not also molecules.

In geometry a point is 0D. The point of a needle is not a geometrical point (why do I find myself stating the most obvious of things?)

Because the reality is that were using geometrical associations to represent 3D occupied space. Ergo we have to step outside of only the 1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and be consider of the macro-infinite non-occupied space and occupied space.


Ive laid all three clearly and asked you to review and see if I am in error. You have, for most part, refuse to even consider what Ive present to you regarding thre primary kinds of space.


And there three primary subcatagories. I'm sure what you and others are afraid of. I think it stems from ego.

Oh, so you did, my apologies.

Thanks for acknowlegment apologizes. Just clarifying for accounting purposes.

You are right. I don't understand that.

Huh? I stated three differrent paragraphs there, all in English and you dont grasp even one word of it. C'mon dude get real.


I repeat Gem this is another reason I dont want to go off into 4D, 5D etc with our or others more you and many others still not familiar with some of the most common and significant 3D polyhedra ex the 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, that contains 5-fold icosahedron, octahedron, tetrahedron, double sine-wave, Euclidean positive and negative curvature, basic blue-print for quadra-pedal patterns of fish and cetacceans.


Yes geometric terms are not English, their greek but in most dictionarys


I originally mentioned the following in reference to Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics to led many into study of holographic mathematics and Bekenstiens comments in Scientific American, that, .."we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D".....


This stems from his discoveries that what is inside the black hole is expressed on seemingly 2D surface, event horizon.


I repeat that the follow is closet thing I could find that approximated this above by Jacobs discoveries.


The surface area, of the four equaltoral, 2D, hexagonal, bisecting planes of the spherical 4-fold Vector Equlibrium/cubo-octahedron, equal, the surface area{ event horizon } of the VE/cubo-octahedron being defined"..



Sorry Gem going off into 3D and 5D etc, seems sort of silly if you cant grasp some of the basics of 4-fold VE/cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron that Ive presented here at SF for year two or more.

All I've seen is you say the term means that, and the next one means something else. Of course I understand your definitions. But so what?

I can tell by your response you ego is still holding you back.



Duh yeah, differrent means differrent kinds of space and I think we have to find agreement on what space is or is not, if were going to talk about space between Earth and moon or solar systems and galaxies etc.


And if were goint to talk about space between to houses on Earth



And if we going to talk about what a vacuum of space truly is.


And if we ascertain our beliefs in whether truly cosmic non-occupied space can appear and dissapear between any of our the parts of finite, occupied space Universe.


And what we believe in regards to Universe being finite set of occupied space or not.

I thought I explained something about particles being fields that pervade all space rather than 'little things' that occupy space, and how it's not particularly accurate to say the vacuum is occupied.

All of you done is try and substitute something{ occupied space } called a "field" for a particle{ occupied space }.



You have nor every will do away with the space between Earth and moon is filled with occupied space.

When you actually want to play a rational logical common sense game of God/Universe/Cosmos with me, then your going to need to read and add too or invalidate my Cosmic Hierarcjhial Outline which contains the Cosmic Trinity and all of its Sub-trinities ex ecto-endo-meso type trinaries.

Yes

Why do I still doubt your sincerity? Lets test you further Please add too or istate what you believe is incorrect in any of the following cosmic outline that includes the Cosmic Trinity.



The following is likened to the table of contents of a conceptual book titled " U "niverse/" G "od aka the Cosmic Heirarchial Outline.


Italics U and G emphasize there direct relationship #1 in the outline below also in italics


0} " U "niverse/" G "od the most comprehensive cosmic set


1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of Space, God, Universe, Time, Dogs, Cars, Math, Points, Basketballs etc,

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

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe, as is falls into trinary set of occupied space types.

3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space, ex biologicals, planets, computers

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,
.....commonly accepted phenomena by 95% of science communiy since Newton.....


....3-4} Spirit-4, negative shaped dark energy )( also occupied space.
.........aka cosmological constant as repulsive force created by Einstein...

The positive negative shapes correlate directly toroidal shapes having both positive and negative curvature as well as two flat areas. See this link



If you agree the above is correct, then we can always use that outline as reference table to help us with our disagreements.


If is something you think is incorrect we can adjust so that we can place into the outline only what we agree on then use that as our base of cosmic agrreements from out front.


The cosmic outline is like a dicitionary in that we can always go to it check our concepts and scenarios when we sometimes disagree.

I think you're just making arbitrary definitions, and PHD's do not understand dark matter, dark energy, or even gravity - they just made it up because they don't understand what they have observed to be true. These are only conceptual paradigms, at least for now.

I'm not asking you to have a PhD. Some people who believe those things you state may actually have PhD's and may actually understand them better than your or I give them credit for.


All I'm looking from you, is common base of agreements that are based on Universe ergo cosmos and the most comprehensive set of cosmically considerate phenomena.


The game is about space and vacuum of space and Ive laid that out clearly those aspects of space and what is not space or not occupied space as a reference tool those to fall back on as what they agree too from out front.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Two sides of a coin, piece paper, box house, Sunny side dark side etc, North face south face.

That's a different context.

Humans making new words all the time cause where paying attention to context. With onset of internet combining parts of two words is used more and more often.


Stephen Colbert is a wordsmith master at this. There are whole comic pages of words on the net meant to funny because of their combinations.


If people are going to remain to serious and never step out side box of commonality they will not 'get it', not find the humor.


If a human familiar with geometry can not intuit the relationship between some sets of words, there lacking intuitive abilities.

(crickets)

vertexex/vertexion/vertices/vertexia/points/dots/nodes/nodal events/crossings/intersections/junctions/joints/knuckles/hubs/energy center/etc

lines/edges/chords/trajectories/vectors/relationships/appendages/ etc

face/hedron/surface/opening/no-events ergo no-vents/






I stated before and again. It is concepts and all concept have zero dimension ergo we present our metaphysical-1 points of contention, of information or disgareement etc.


A physical point is at minimum 3D ergo the minimal point can be no less than a tetrahedron ergo point has a volume.

There are no physical geometric points.

A 2D point is aka presented as a dot. A row of points or dots...............


Pencil/pen comes to a point.





They will start making noise around here next month.




Concepts have no diemension. Lines in mathematics are 1D. Lines presented to us visually are 2D but all physically visual lines are occupied space ergo 3D at minimum because there composed of quanta, atoms, if not also molecules.









Because the reality is that were using geometrical associations to represent 3D occupied space. Ergo we have to step outside of only the 1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and be consider of the macro-infinite non-occupied space and occupied space.


Ive laid all three clearly and asked you to review and see if I am in error. You have, for most part, refuse to even consider what Ive present to you regarding thre primary kinds of space.




And there three primary subcatagories. I'm sure what you and others are afraid of. I think it stems from ego.





Thanks for acknowlegment apologizes. Just clarifying for accounting purposes.





Huh? I stated three differrent paragraphs there, all in English and you dont grasp even one word of it. C'mon dude get real.


I repeat Gem this is another reason I dont want to go off into 4D, 5D etc with our or others more you and many others still not familiar with some of the most common and significant 3D polyhedra ex the 4-fold VE/cubo-octahedron, that contains 5-fold icosahedron, octahedron, tetrahedron, double sine-wave, Euclidean positive and negative curvature, basic blue-print for quadra-pedal patterns of fish and cetacceans.


Yes geometric terms are not English, their greek but in most dictionary.


I originally mentioned the following in reference to Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics to led many into study of holographic mathematics and Bekenstiens comments in Scientific American, that, .."we appear to be 2D creatures having and illusion of 3D".....


This stems from his discoveries that what is inside the black hole is expressed on seemingly 2D surface, event horizon.


I repeat that the follow is closet thing I could find that approximated this above by Jacobs discoveries.


The surface area, of the four equaltoral, 2D, hexagonal, bisecting planes of the spherical 4-fold Vector Equlibrium/cubo-octahedron, equal, the surface area{ event horizon } of the VE/cubo-octahedron being defined"..



Sorry Gem going off into 3D and 5D etc, seems sort of silly if you cant grasp some of the basics of 4-fold VE/cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron that Ive presented here at SF for year two or more.





I can tell by your response you ego is still holding you back.



Duh yeah, differrent means differrent kinds of space and I think we have to find agreement on what space is or is not, if were going to talk about space between Earth and moon or solar systems and galaxies etc.


And if were goint to talk about space between to houses on Earth



And if we going to talk about what a vacuum of space truly is.


And if we ascertain our beliefs in whether truly cosmic non-occupied space can appear and dissapear between any of our the parts of finite, occupied space Universe.


And what we believe in regards to Universe being finite set of occupied space or not.

If we arbitrarily define a boundary, then we can simply say it's finite.

All of you done is try and substitute something{ occupied space } called a "field" for a particle{ occupied space }.



You have nor every will do away with the space between Earth and moon is filled with occupied space.

When you actually want to play a rational logical common sense game of God/Universe/Cosmos with me, then your going to need to read and add too or invalidate my Cosmic Hierarcjhial Outline which contains the Cosmic Trinity and all of its Sub-trinities ex ecto-endo-meso type trinaries.





Why do I still doubt your sincerity? Lets test you further Please add too or istate what you believe is incorrect in any of the following cosmic outline that includes the Cosmic Trinity.

There's stuff, there's concept, there's empty space. So what?

The following is likened to the table of contents of a conceptual book titled " U "niverse/" G "od aka the Cosmic Heirarchial Outline.


Italics U and G emphasize there direct relationship #1 in the outline below also in italics


0} " U "niverse/" G "od the most comprehensive cosmic set

So, everything.

1} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of Space, God, Universe, Time, Dogs, Cars, Math, Points, Basketballs etc,

So, Concepts.

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

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe, as is falls into trinary set of occupied space types.

So, space which isn't occupied that pervades space which is.

3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space, ex biologicals, planets, computers

Matter, be it mass or massless.

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,
.....commonly accepted phenomena by 95% of science communiy since Newton.....

I have never heard any scientist (or anyone else) say "positive shaped gravity".

....3-4} Spirit-4, negative shaped dark energy )( also occupied space.
.........aka cosmological constant as repulsive force created by Einstein...

So, vacuum energy density or cosmological constant.

The positive negative shapes correlate directly toroidal shapes having both positive and negative curvature as well as two flat areas. See this link

So you say the curve of the surface of a torus represents the sort of space/time curvature you defined above ad gravity and dark energy. (a torus has no flat surfaces - but you mean straight line on the surface of a torus I think)

If you agree the above is correct, then we can always use that outline as reference table to help us with our disagreements.

Well,



If is something you think is incorrect we can adjust so that we can place into the outline only what we agree on then use that as our base of cosmic agrreements from out front.

Why would I accept it as correct or incorrect? You haven't explained anything.

The cosmic outline is like a dicitionary in that we can always go to it check our concepts and scenarios when we sometimes disagree.





I'm not asking you to have a PhD. Some people who believe those things you state may actually have PhD's and may actually understand them better than your or I give them credit for.

PHD will inform you of the correct terminology. There is already language for these things and no reason to make up new words.

All I'm looking from you, is common base of agreements that are based on Universe ergo cosmos and the most comprehensive set of cosmically considerate phenomena.


The game is about space and vacuum of space and Ive laid that out clearly those aspects of space and what is not space or not occupied space as a reference tool those to fall back on as what they agree too from out front.

Fine, I accept your definitions of the terms

[r6r6]

Gem--If we arbitrarily define a boundary, then we can simply say it's finite.

Who defined a boundary? What arbitrary boundary are you talking about? Do you think I posted an arbitrary boundary? Yes Cosmic Hierarchal Outline is a finite set. So what?

r6--The following is likened to the table of contents of a conceptual book titled " U "niverse/" G "od aka the Cosmic Heirarchial Outline.

Finite set ergo a boundary of being a finite set.

r6--Italics U and G emphasize there direct relationship #1 in the outline below also in italics
0} " U "niverse/" G "od the most comprehensive cosmic set

So, everything.

Yes, that is a gross generalization, that contains the Cosmic Trinity



Ergo the cosmic trinity that follows below is a finite set and it is not arbitrary. It is based on rational logical common sense derivatives from our observations.



Consisder all that humans observe and get back to me. It is a finite set.

1} r6--Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of Space, God, Universe, Time, Dogs, Cars, Math, Points, Basketballs etc,

GEm---There's stuff, there's concept, there's empty space. So what?

Yes humans observe concept. Duhh, "so what" as if having that in cosmic outline is of no significance. You obviously not sincere your desire to have rational, logical common sense conversation with me.


Yeah ---irrespetive of your lack of sincere consideration--- ergo seeming inconsequential to you "concepts". Trying having computers, internet and this conversation without access following #2 and see how that get yous GEm.


You, Gem, need to awaken ---from intellectual sleep and deafness--- and smell the rose's of significance regarding metaphysical-1 absolute and relative truths.

Gem-- There's stuff, there's concept, there's empty space. So what?

Empty space is relative. Un-occupied/empty bathroom still is filled with air-molecules, photons, neutrinos etc.


You still not being sincere or acknowledging the point of using the words Cosmic Outline and Cosmic Trinity. Were not taling about empty space between the ears of a person in coma, or empty space between two houses etc.


What I posted is Cosmic non-occupied space, and has earned more appreication of it significance from and others who actually can drop their egos and smell the roses of Cosmic intellectual considerations.



..."2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse, as is falls into trinary set of occupied space types."....

Gem--So, space which isn't occupied that pervades space which is.

Not what I stated at all and not a correct interpretation of what I stated. More signs of your lack of sincerity. Read again and please take note of these words in the above .."non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse,"........

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

Yeah Gem, that is conceptual line-of-demarcation not an occupied space line in our brain or between earth and moon, etc.

GEm--There's stuff, there's concept, there's empty space. So what?

Ditto all of my above and get back to my when you want to drop you ego and have a sincere disscussion about Cosmic Trinity. There is reason I call it cosmic. You appear to fall far short of this significance.


As if you actually have any wholistic cosmic nature to offer us.

Gem--There's stuff, there's concept, there's empty space. So what? Matter, be it mass or massless.

Yeah there is stuff and I was and have been very specific for years.


Fermionic matter is matter not massless "stuff"



Bosonic forces is not "matter"and tho some not stated as having rest mass, they have some kind of mass or they would not be affected by gravity aka mass-attraction.



3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space, ex biologicals, planets, computers

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,
.....commonly accepted phenomena by 95% of science communiy since Newton.....

Gem---I have never heard any scientist (or anyone else) say "positive shaped gravity".

Nor have I. So fair enough but also what is fair to say is, Gem, have you ever had any cosmic thoughts or concepts that you .."never heard from any scientist say"..., Sure you have, and so have many others as well amongest scientists themselves.



And before you again say ..so what... If it follows a rational, logical common sense pathway of thought then there is no reason I should not post what I believe is the case for gravity in my Cosmic Outline.


I seem to recall geodesic warped space being used associated with gravity many times over the years.


I also recall, from years ago, Freeman Dyson{ scientist type } refer to gravity as negative space and all else as positive space.


My geo-numerical torus scenario is kinda of the opposite and also specifically involves shape, I dont recall Dysoning referencing any shape of gravity.


We can consider most planets and stars are convexly shaped ergo positive shaped and they are resultant of gravity. Galaxies do come in more varied shapes but they all have convex{ positive } roundness to them.

r6--3-4} Spirit-4, negative shaped dark energy )( also occupied space.
.........aka cosmological constant as repulsive force created by Einstein...

So, vacuum energy density or cosmological constant

.


"vacuum energy"? They may be what some people attribute to dark energy, I dont recall if that is well accepted scenario. Kinda of would make sense.


If gravity has a geodesic positive aspect, then it makes rational logical common sense for dark energy to have 180 degree, diametrically opposite shape, as I believe is the case and expressed in my geonumerical torus scenarios.


Dark energy{ space } is repulsive opposite of gravitational ( ) space.


I hope you grasp that commonly understood concepts. Einstein created repulsive dark energy-like math concept in his early formula and called it the 'cosmological constant'.


You know the story. Been told many times

r6--The positive negative shapes correlate directly toroidal shapes having both positive and negative curvature as well as two flat areas. See this lin

Gem--So you say the curve of the surface of a torus represents the sort of space/time....

No, reread I did not say what you have projected above .."space/time"...


Observed Time is the sine-wave pattern ^v^v /\/\/{ aka 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc } inside the tube i.e. the internal body or organs of the toroidal tube. Gravity ( ) and dark energy )( are only associtated with surface curvature



( )( ) = bisection/cross-section of torus


^v^v or as /\/\/ is derived from invaginations, inversions at peak of positive and negative curvature of torus ergo a bisction/cross-section including Observed Time inversions/invaginations looks more like this (><)(><)


This above was derived from my exploration of prime numbers in four levels/line format/orientation.All of that is explained in one or more threads here at SF.

Gem--So you say the curve of the surface of a torus represents the sort of space/time curvature you defined above as gravity and dark energy. (a torus has no flat surfaces - but you mean straight line on the surface of a torus I think)

What I mean is that there is web site state calls the area of transition between postive and negaive curvature as being 'flat'. I was surprised as you to read that.


I'm was not and still not a specialist on torus geometry. My four lelves/lines are similar to Arthur Youngs{ inventer of Bell helicopter } --see Reflexive Universe---- as he went deeply into the torus.


I cant find that web site but at a wiki site it is called ..'Guassian zero point".. of curvature between postive and negative. This would be what I call the a great circle on top and bottom of torus, if we consider torus to be like a doughnut laying on counter top.

Gem---Why would I accept it as correct or incorrect? You haven't explained anything.

Why would you not? Get real dude. I repeat so read my lips/text again as you apparrently have yet to grasp, or read, that this is a likened to a table-of-contents of a book titled ..'The Cosmic Hierarchial Outline'.

A table of contents is the overall: gross } explanation of what is found in the book. Have you never seen a table-of-contents in any books?



What is in the book is the first chapter 'The Cosmic Trinity'.


Oh but I repeat myself because you still lack sincerity to engage in truly wholistic cosmic sets and omni-considerate concepts. Sad


But you have made it further than most. I think there have three people over last 20 years who have made even the most feeble, sincere attempts at grasping any cosmic wholistic set much less my specific outline, that has evolved over 20 years.


So kudos for you attempt Gem. You still fall short of having a sincere appreciation for wholistally cosmic viewpoints, concepts etc.

PHD will inform you of the correct terminology. There is already language for these things and no reason to make up new words.

If you believe those with PhD do not use combinatorial words, slang, new language that is inherently occurring all the time, then your clueless.


Dictionaries and the words to define our observations and technologies is ever changing. We do not live an a stagnant Universe.


It is ok to create new words or alternative words or use synonyms to better express and reference our observations.


If you have specific words in my Cosmic Ouline you do not grasp then you can ask. Is there any actual "new words" in my Cosmic Outline that offends your intellectual sensiabilities?


Well Gem is there? I guess I'm having trouble recalling them. Must not be many of them.


Have you pointed out even one of them in your last reply post above? I dont see that actually have any specific 'new words" in the cosmic ouline that was so far outside of your intellectually intuitive mental abilities to grasp, or explained by me that you actually feel concerned to specify them.


Did you? Maybe I missed those specific 'new words' in the cosmic outline. Sorry if you were specific about them and I just missed them.











Fine, I accept your definitions of the terms[/quote]

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Who defined a boundary? What arbitrary boundary are you talking about? Do you think I posted an arbitrary boundary? Yes Cosmic Hierarchal Outline is a finite set. So what?




Finite set ergo a boundary of being a finite set.








Yes, that is a gross generalization, that contains the Cosmic Trinity



Ergo the cosmic trinity that follows below is a finite set and it is not arbitrary. It is based on rational logical common sense derivatives from our observations.



Consisder all that humans observe and get back to me. It is a finite set.







Yes humans observe concept. Duhh, "so what" as if having that in cosmic outline is of no significance. You obviously not sincere your desire to have rational, logical common sense conversation with me.


Yeah ---irrespetive of your lack of sincere consideration--- ergo seeming inconsequential to you "concepts". Trying having computers, internet and this conversation without access following #2 and see how that get yous GEm.



You, Gem, need to awaken ---from intellectual sleep and deafness--- and smell the rose's of significance regarding metaphysical-1 absolute and relative truths.





Empty space is relative. Un-occupied/empty bathroom still is filled with air-molecules, photons, neutrinos etc.

Empty space usually means the vacuum.

You still not being sincere or acknowledging the point of using the words Cosmic Outline and Cosmic Trinity. Were not taling about empty space between the ears of a person in coma, or empty space between two houses etc.


What I posted is Cosmic non-occupied space, and has earned more appreication of it significance from and others who actually can drop their egos and smell the roses of Cosmic intellectual considerations.



..."2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse, as is falls into trinary set of occupied space types."....





Not what I stated at all and not a correct interpretation of what I stated. More signs of your lack of sincerity. Read again and please take note of these words in the above .."non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the follow finite occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse,"........







Yeah Gem, that is conceptual line-of-demarcation not an occupied space line in our brain or between earth and moon, etc.






Ditto all of my above and get back to my when you want to drop you ego and have a sincere disscussion about Cosmic Trinity. There is reason I call it cosmic. You appear to fall far short of this significance.


As if you actually have any wholistic cosmic nature to offer us.





Yeah there is stuff and I was and have been very specific for years.


Fermionic matter is matter not massless "stuff"



Bosonic forces is not "matter"and tho some not stated as having rest mass, they have some kind of mass or they would not be affected by gravity aka mass-attraction.

It's because gravity is thought of as curvature in space time, so light follows the curve of space so is going straight through space. It is massless so it travels at c. Mass cannot travel at c.

3} Spirit-2, physical/energy via fermions, bosons are any aggregate collection thereof as occupied space, ex biologicals, planets, computers

...3-3 } Spirit-3, positive shaped gravity ( ) also occupied space,
.....commonly accepted phenomena by 95% of science communiy since Newton.....





Nor have I. So fair enough but also what is fair to say is, Gem, have you ever had any cosmic thoughts or concepts that you .."never heard from any scientist say"..., Sure you have, and so have many others as well amongest scientists themselves.



And before you again say ..so what... If it follows a rational, logical common sense pathway of thought then there is no reason I should not post what I believe is the case for gravity in my Cosmic Outline.


I seem to recall geodesic warped space being used associated with gravity many times over the years.

As Einstein modeled it, gravity is curvature in space time associated with mass.

I also recall, from years ago, Freeman Dyson{ scientist type } refer to gravity as negative space and all else as positive space.

That's basically right. Gravity is said to has a negative energy value. Matter has a positive energy value. The total energy value is 0 according to the model known as 'flat universe' (which is also an infinite universe).

My geo-numerical torus scenario is kinda of the opposite and also specifically involves shape, I dont recall Dysoning referencing any shape of gravity.


We can consider most planets and stars are convexly shaped ergo positive shaped and they are resultant of gravity. Galaxies do come in more varied shapes but they all have convex{ positive } roundness to them.

.


"vacuum energy"? They may be what some people attribute to dark energy, I dont recall if that is well accepted scenario. Kinda of would make sense.

Yes dark energy is directly related to the energy density of the universe which is valued as the cosmological constant, which explains the accelerating expansion of space/time.

If gravity has a geodesic positive aspect, then it makes rational logical common sense for dark energy to have 180 degree, diametrically opposite shape, as I believe is the case and expressed in my geonumerical torus scenarios.

Well you wouldn't be the first to view the universe as a torus.

Dark energy{ space }

is repulsive opposite of gravitational ( ) space.

I hope you grasp that commonly understood concepts. Einstein created repulsive dark energy-like math concept in his early formula and called it the 'cosmological constant'.

It's not repulsive per se. It's what causes the accelerating expansion of space. But in terms of expansion as opposed to contraction it's fair to think these as opposite forces, because if there were no dark energy, the galaxies would slow down and then reverse into the big crunch.

You know the story. Been told many times

No, reread I did not say what you have projected above .."space/time"...


Observed Time is the sine-wave pattern ^v^v /\/\/{ aka 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc } inside the tube i.e. the internal body or organs of the toroidal tube. Gravity ( ) and dark energy )( are only associtated with surface curvature



( )( ) = bisection/cross-section of torus


^v^v or as /\/\/ is derived from invaginations, inversions at peak of positive and negative curvature of torus ergo a bisction/cross-section including Observed Time inversions/invaginations looks more like this (><)(><)


This above was derived from my exploration of prime numbers in four levels/line format/orientation.All of that is explained in one or more threads here at SF.








What I mean is that there is web site state calls the area of transition between postive and negaive curvature as being 'flat'. I was surprised as you to read that.

Sounds like the 'flat universe' model. The zero energy aspect of this suggests the universe arose form nothing, but it's much to do with the uncertainty principle which suggests the minimum quanta can arise spontaneously without cause. Laurence Krauss is probably the most famous proponent of this, famed for his book "A universe from nothing". His talks are also on u-tube.

I'm was not and still not a specialist on torus geometry. My four lelves/lines are similar to Arthur Youngs{ inventer of Bell helicopter } --see Reflexive Universe---- as he went deeply into the torus.


I cant find that web site but at a wiki site it is called ..'Guassian zero point".. of curvature between postive and negative. This would be what I call the a great circle on top and bottom of torus, if we consider torus to be like a doughnut laying on counter top.





Why would you not? Get real dude. I repeat so read my lips/text again as you apparrently have yet to grasp, or read, that this is a likened to a table-of-contents of a book titled ..'The Cosmic Hierarchial Outline'.

A table of contents is the overall: gross } explanation of what is found in the book. Have you never seen a table-of-contents in any books?



What is in the book is the first chapter 'The Cosmic Trinity'.


Oh but I repeat myself because you still lack sincerity to engage in truly wholistic cosmic sets and omni-considerate concepts. Sad


But you have made it further than most. I think there have three people over last 20 years who have made even the most feeble, sincere attempts at grasping any cosmic wholistic set much less my specific outline, that has evolved over 20 years.


So kudos for you attempt Gem. You still fall short of having a sincere appreciation for wholistally cosmic viewpoints, concepts etc.




If you believe those with PhD do not use combinatorial words, slang, new language that is inherently occurring all the time, then your clueless.


Dictionaries and the words to define our observations and technologies is ever changing. We do not live an a stagnant Universe.


It is ok to create new words or alternative words or use synonyms to better express and reference our observations.

We usually only make up new terms when there are no terms already. If it's not necessary why would we?

If you have specific words in my Cosmic Ouline you do not grasp then you can ask. Is there any actual "new words" in my Cosmic Outline that offends your intellectual sensiabilities?


Well Gem is there? I guess I'm having trouble recalling them. Must not be many of them.


Have you pointed out even one of them in your last reply post above? I dont see that actually have any specific 'new words" in the cosmic ouline that was so far outside of your intellectually intuitive mental abilities to grasp, or explained by me that you actually feel concerned to specify them.


Did you? Maybe I missed those specific 'new words' in the cosmic outline. Sorry if you were specific about them and I just missed them.

I accept the way you define the trinity terms, but what comes next?

[Gem]

I like this fellow's videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSTTFS8Uco

[r6r6]

Gem----Empty space usually means the vacuum.

Vacumm of space between Earth and moon is filled with stuff, fermions and/bosons. I thought you already knew that.

I guess you didn't see the Feynman documenatry or tv, as I did, or you dissagree with Feynmans assessment and mine.

It's because gravity is thought of as curvature in space time, so light follows the curve of space so is going straight through space. It is massless so it travels at c. Mass cannot travel at c.

OMG, Gem, listen to yourself and please try and follow some simple rational, logical common sense pathways Ive been espousing around here for years.

Occupied space is occupied ergo exists as occupied space medium ex fermions, bosons gravity or dark energy{ if it exists }.

Spirit-2 and spirit3 and spirit-4 as I clearly have laid out in cosmic outline.

Space has to be a 'something' that is occupied, ergo occupied space. Only then can be space ne bent, curved warped. Ex not sure why I have to keep repeating this to you. A 2 x 4 piece of lumber{ not treated } will obsorb mositure and war/curve.

True non-occupied space cannot be curved warped etc. Do you grasp/understand Gem?

To have comment "curve of space" your space has to be a medum, it has to be occupied space. Do you understand that Gem?

Mass-attract gravity occupies space and is inherently positive curvature. Or so I believe based on my experiences, observations and geo-numerical explorations over the years.

Repulsive Dark energy occupies space and inheerently negative curvature.

These two curvatures are diametric opposites in a torus. The operative nature of mass-attraction and repulsion are opposites. DO you understand Gem?

Gem--As Einstein modeled it, gravity is curvature in space time associated with mass.

Ditto my above Gem. Gravity and dark energy occupy space and only occupied space, can be curved.

That's basically right. Gravity is said to has a negative energy value. Matter has a positive energy value. The total energy value is 0 according to the model known as 'flat universe' (which is also an infinite universe).

Well Gem you can have that disscussion of those values with Dyson.

I'm presenting shape of occupied space, concepts and again specifically graviational, dark energy and Observed Time ^v^v or as /\/\/

Gem--Yes dark energy is directly related to the energy density of the universe which is valued as the cosmological constant, which explains the accelerating expansion of space/time.

And previously you seemed to associate it with vacuum energy ergo if that is true then the vacuum is filled with dark energy, at a minimum ---plus more that Ive stated many times now---.

Other than dark energy being repulsive, Ive presented as geometric shape of dark energy )( that is diametrical opposite of gravity ( ) yet they are intimately related to each other if not every fermionic and bosonic particle of Universe

Four distinctly differrent cosmically primary kinds of occupied space. Do you uderstand, even if you disagree with shape of space, the cosmic outline, presents the primary kinds of space, and primary, kinds of occupied space.

I know you have previous stated so what to this or that regarding my cosmic outline. I have been clear on why so what, even if your refuse to acknowledge those answers I gave to your 'so what's.

Well you wouldn't be the first to view the universe as a torus.

Huh? When and where did I ever state that Universe is a torus or that I view Universe as torus? I think are creating projections from some presumptions or assumptions.

Didnt we even talk of this in this thread or another recently I believe shape of Universes boundary is lumpy and I explained why that would be due to a many tori interacting or a few large tori.

Ive posted this link to Greg Egans graphic for many years as the closet animation of how I might view our dyanamically undulating spherical shaped Universe.

Ive posted this link here at SF for years and long before I developed my geo-numerical tori ideas.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCHILD/SCHILD.html

If, Gem, you want to go off on a Universe as torus scenario, then this link to animation is one of my favorites. 65% of what makes its so special is the music, so please play on good speakers if you have them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sAqQhxxszw

Gem--It's not repulsive per se. It's what causes the accelerating expansion of space.

Yes it is repulsively dispersive, dissassociating and for that reason is like EMRadiation.

But in terms of expansion as opposed to contraction it's fair to think these as opposite forces, because if there were no dark energy, the galaxies would slow down and then reverse into the big crunch.

Now your catching on.


Gravity ( ) = mass-attraction ergo contraction ( ) positive curvature coheres Universe by pulling-INward



Dark Energy )( = repulsive dispersion ergo dissaociation by expansion


Grasping these two concepts does not require a PhD. And often a PhD closes peoples minds to the most simplistic concepts.

Who is that other person in this thread is all bent out of shape because I dont use tons of complicated abstract algebra or worse? Oh yeah Shivani. Sad :--(

Sounds like the 'flat universe' model. The zero energy aspect of this suggests the universe arose form nothing, but it's much to do with the uncertainty principle which suggests the minimum quanta can arise spontaneously without cause. Laurence Krauss is probably the most famous proponent of this, famed for his book "A universe from nothing". His talks are also on u-tube.

I stated nothing about zero energy in my Cosmic Hiearchial Outline. I think your once again confusing my ideas with someone elses.


"Universe from Nothing" is large crock of non-sense. I certainly have not stated such. Your confused at best or at worst......


Gem you need to learn about 1st law of thermodynamics and realize that occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo exist eternally. Do you understand this simple concept?


Your deluding yourself if your going to go off on occupied space from non-occupied space scenario. Lacks rational logical common sense. This forum and many others full of those types. Some of those want to off into 5D and they can barely grasp 3D or concepts involving a finite integral occupied space Universe, so they will go off into infinite and inferred occupied space Universes. Sad :--(


So many of them carry around infinity in their back pockets ready to whip out at the drop of a hat to show others that infinity is the answer to all questions becuase with infinity anything is possible. Duhh, no anything is not possible.


Then try and tell them about a finite set of cosmic laws/principles and they reference biblical nonsense, run away and hide, or occasionally will state that no cosmic laws/principles exist.


Then I throw the five and/only five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra and then they run and hide, or start in biblical this or that or some other religous nonsense. Sad :--(


Some aspects of religion has its place. They often try to use inappropriately or in wrong place at wrong time.










We usually only make up new terms when there are no terms already. If it's not necessary why would we?




I accept the way you define the trinity terms, but what comes next?[/quote]

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Vacumm of space between Earth and moon is filled with stuff, fermions and/bosons. I thought you already knew that.

I guess you didn't see the Feynman documenatry or tv, as I did, or you dissagree with Feynmans assessment and mine.

According to quantum field theory, which quantum elecrodynamics (Feynman's speciality) is part of, it's true the entirety of the universe is 'filled' with fields. Matter particles like electrons emerge from 'ripples' in their fields as probabilities of being somewhere within in a region of space, so a particle isn't really a little thing that occupies space, but something that fills space entirely. It basically means that space isn't occupied per se, but completely filled.

OMG, Gem, listen to yourself and please try and follow some simple rational, logical common sense pathways Ive been espousing around here for years.

Occupied space is occupied ergo exists as occupied space medium ex fermions, bosons gravity or dark energy{ if it exists }.

Spirit-2 and spirit3 and spirit-4 as I clearly have laid out in cosmic outline.

Space has to be a 'something' that is occupied, ergo occupied space. Only then can be space ne bent, curved warped. Ex not sure why I have to keep repeating this to you. A 2 x 4 piece of lumber{ not treated } will obsorb mositure and war/curve.

Mass is no longer stuff according to current physics. It is product of energy. This came up when they discovered quarks make up the nucleus of atoms. The discovered that the combined mass of the 3 quarks was only a small fraction of the mass of a proton/neutron. This led to the gluon which in itself has no mass (it's a massless particle) but as a force carrier between quarks, it has extremely high energy. Hence the mass of photons is mostly the energy levels transferred by the strong force which is carried by massless gluons. In that space itself has energy density without any matter, the vacuum of space itself has mass in the same sense that gluons do, but stll, without actually weighing anything in any traditional sense. M=E/c2, as Einstein said.

True non-occupied space cannot be curved warped etc. Do you grasp/understand Gem?

Sure, I accept that in principle.

To have comment "curve of space" your space has to be a medum, it has to be occupied space. Do you understand that Gem?

Yes, it needs a density, but all this is related to Einsteins notions of space/time. Curvature refers to how the very fabric of the universe is curved in relation to matter with mass.

Mass-attract gravity occupies space and is inherently positive curvature. Or so I believe based on my experiences, observations and geo-numerical explorations over the years.

True enough as physicists claim that matter is a positive energy value whereas gravity is a negative energy value of the same quantity.

Repulsive Dark energy occupies space and inheerently negative curvature.

These two curvatures are diametric opposites in a torus. The operative nature of mass-attraction and repulsion are opposites. DO you understand Gem?

Sure. I understand the concept.

Ditto my above Gem. Gravity and dark energy occupy space and only occupied space, can be curved.



Well Gem you can have that disscussion of those values with Dyson.

I'm presenting shape of occupied space, concepts and again specifically graviational, dark energy and Observed Time ^v^v or as /\/\/



And previously you seemed to associate it with vacuum energy ergo if that is true then the vacuum is filled with dark energy, at a minimum ---plus more that Ive stated many times now---.

Dark energy is essentially the same as the energy density of space.

Other than dark energy being repulsive, Ive presented as geometric shape of dark energy )( that is diametrical opposite of gravity ( ) yet they are intimately related to each other if not every fermionic and bosonic particle of Universe

Four distinctly differrent cosmically primary kinds of occupied space. Do you uderstand, even if you disagree with shape of space, the cosmic outline, presents the primary kinds of space, and primary, kinds of occupied space.

I know you have previous stated so what to this or that regarding my cosmic outline. I have been clear on why so what, even if your refuse to acknowledge those answers I gave to your 'so what's.


Huh? When and where did I ever state that Universe is a torus or that I view Universe as torus? I think are creating projections from some presumptions or assumptions.

You cosmological model is explained using a torus.

Didnt we even talk of this in this thread or another recently I believe shape of Universes boundary is lumpy and I explained why that would be due to a many tori interacting or a few large tori.

Ive posted this link to Greg Egans graphic for many years as the closet animation of how I might view our dyanamically undulating spherical shaped Universe.

Ive posted this link here at SF for years and long before I developed my geo-numerical tori ideas.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCHILD/SCHILD.html

If, Gem, you want to go off on a Universe as torus scenario, then this link to animation is one of my favorites. 65% of what makes its so special is the music, so please play on good speakers if you have them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sAqQhxxszw


Yes it is repulsively dispersive, dissassociating and for that reason is like EMRadiation.

Dark energy is what makes space itself expand, so it causes the galaxies to drift apart. In that sense it is repulsive. But dark energy is constant throughout space, unlike gravity which is stronger aroung more massive bodies. EMR refers to the 'light spectrum' and I'm not aware of that having any repulsive effect.

Now your catching on.


Gravity ( ) = mass-attraction ergo contraction ( ) positive curvature coheres Universe by pulling-INward

Yes it is inward pulling in the sense that mass creates curvature in space time, so say hypothetically that gravity would cause the galaxies to converge, creating an ever increasing mass in a 'central location'. Space time would then have extreme curvature which would represent the contraction of space time itself... in a manner of speaking.

Dark Energy )(

= repulsive dispersion ergo dissaociation by expansion



Grasping these two concepts does not require a PhD. And often a PhD closes peoples minds to the most simplistic concepts.

Who is that other person in this thread is all bent out of shape because I dont use tons of complicated abstract algebra or worse? Oh yeah Shivani. Sad :--(

I stated nothing about zero energy in my Cosmic Hiearchial Outline. I think your once again confusing my ideas with someone elses./

I can't remember mentioning zero energy. Just that the sum of positive matter and negative gravity adds up to zero.

"Universe from Nothing" is large crock of non-sense. I certainly have not stated such. Your confused at best or at worst......


Gem you need to learn about 1st law of thermodynamics and realize that occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo exist eternally. Do you understand this simple concept?

Classical physics isn't consistent with QM, but what it boils down to is the conservation of energy.

Your deluding yourself if your going to go off on occupied space from non-occupied space scenario. Lacks rational logical common sense. This forum and many others full of those types. Some of those want to off into 5D and they can barely grasp 3D or concepts involving a finite integral occupied space Universe, so they will go off into infinite and inferred occupied space Universes. Sad :--(


So many of them carry around infinity in their back pockets ready to whip out at the drop of a hat to show others that infinity is the answer to all questions becuase with infinity anything is possible. Duhh, no anything is not possible.

Yes, I earlier outlined the geometry showing that some arrangements are not possible.

Then try and tell them about a finite set of cosmic laws/principles and they reference biblical nonsense, run away and hide, or occasionally will state that no cosmic laws/principles exist.


Then I throw the five and/only five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra and then they run and hide, or start in biblical this or that or some other religous nonsense. Sad :--(

Oh, he who throws the first polyhedron hath not sinned ay? Teehee.

Some aspects of religion has its place. They often try to use inappropriately or in wrong place at wrong time.

I can't comment on religion because ma mamma always tole me if have nothing nice to say; don't say anything

[r6r6]

Gem---According to quantum field theory, which quantum elecrodynamics (Feynman's speciality) is part of, it's true the entirety of the universe is 'filled' with fields. Matter particles like electrons emerge from 'ripples' in their fields as probabilities of being somewhere within in a region of space, so a particle isn't really a little thing that occupies space, but something that fills space entirely. It basically means that space isn't occupied per se, but completely filled.

Fermionic matter particles and bosomic force particles occupy space between Earth and moon.


You can try and diverge from the facts as I present by using the word "fields" but to no avail as your know or should know that all fields are occupied space and specifically associated with only fermions or bosons.


There may exist a new catagory of particle that is not fermionic or bosonic. I came across it a few months ago but is so relatively new, if true, that I barely recall what I briefly read about the.


Irrespective of whether there exist a third class of particle it occupies space and likely to have an associated "fields" that are occupied space.

So using other names, words etc to not allow you to wiggle out of what I believe fact, the space between Earth moon, Solar systems, Galaxies etc remains, that, occupied space exists in all of this stated vacuum of space places.


They are occupied space. Once you can accept this fact then we can perhaps move on to the question you asked several posts back regarding can an a truly non-occupied exist within Universe.


The simple answer is no. There is no true vacuum of space within Universe. That led into my getting you to understand the three primary kinds of space in my Cosmic Hierarchal Outline.


We appear to be much closer to addressing that issue in detail and that is where it overlaps with metaphysical-1 geometry. Space of our finite Universe is filled with stuff. Feynman and my assessment.

Mass is no longer stuff according to current physics. It is product of energy. This came up when they discovered quarks make up the nucleus of atoms. The discovered that the combined mass of the 3 quarks was only a small fraction of the mass of a proton/neutron. This led to the gluon which in itself has no mass (it's a massless particle) but as a force carrier between quarks, it has extremely high energy. Hence the mass of photons is mostly the energy levels transferred by the strong force which is carried by massless gluons. In that space itself has energy density without any matter, the vacuum of space itself has mass in the same sense that gluons do, but stll, without actually weighing anything in any traditional sense. M=E/c2, as Einstein said.

You totally diverged an avoided my comments as stated by going off somewhere else. Read my lips/text. My comments addressed your prior post comments regarding warped space/time.


Gem, do you want to have a rational, logical common disscussion or play diverge and avoid rational, logical common sense games, .


As stated by you curved space, or as stated by space/time has to be occupied space in order to be warped or bent or curved etc.,


You did not address my comments as stated. Address my comments yes or no or even yeah you understand and then offer some rational, logical common sense that address and directly related, not what went on and on about "mass"


Read my lips/text ruly non-occupied space cannot be bent warped curved, except in that is is what happens to outside of occupied space Universe that , has dynamic defined curved/warped/bent boundaries.

Sure, I accept that in principle.

Then when did why did you not address what I stated previous and went off on irrrelevant "mass" direction?


All of my comments were in regards to you comment that "space" is curved or warped etc. Only if it is occupied ergo



Gravitational ( ) space = positive geodesic curvature trajectories


Dark Energy )( space = negative geodesic curved trajectories


Space as non-occupied space in of it self cannot have curvature as stated, inferred implied and I'm trying make sure were on the same page because first you make those kind of statements, then you go off on irrelevant, then give a quick "sure I agree".


Easy to say you agree but you really do no grasp.

Yes, it needs a density, but all this is related to Einsteins notions of space/time. Curvature refers to how the very fabric of the universe is curved in relation to matter with mass.

Does your use of the word "density" equate as occupied space?

Do your use of word "mass" equate as occupied space?


Yes they do but they are direct use of the term space. Occupied space has variations of density and mass ergo occupied space is the greater generalization and "density" or "mass" is more specific qualities of occupied space.


You keep attempting to diverge and not address this fact that the Cosmic Outline covers all of these special-case qualities of occupied space, and not the primary fact that space can be only one of three possibilities first and foremost.


1} metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concept of Space, God, Time Universe etc,


2} macro-infinite non-occupied space,


3} occupied space.




All of divergencies into mass, field, densities is your attempts to avoid the fact and acknowledge such, that they are all covered in these two words occupied space.


And they are covered by my first sub-catagory classification of 3-1} physical/energy --ergo Observed Time frequencies ^v^v or as /\/\/ sine-wave patterns that are fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof.


All of you special-cases are covered{ expressed } in the Cosmic Outline in more generalised fashion. The table of contents is all inclusive of words, qualities that you may use to diverge from the above set of truths

True enough as physicists claim that matter is a positive energy value whereas gravity is a negative energy value of the same quantity.

Then it follows that occupied space can be warped, bent, curved and I present that has positive shaped geodesic curvature.


This sperate issue from your above gravity has negative energy value.


You dont yet seem to be able make a distinction between a shape of occupied space, and a value attributed to its density, or mass, spin, or whatever, other than shape.


Do you understand how your not yet making that distinction?


Also gravity is not truly physical/energy so your comments gravity has negative energy value, at this time is misleading because gravity is metaphysical-3, spirit-3.



Do you understand that gravity is metaphysical?



I.e. gravity has not be quantified ergo no specific value, nor has it been quantised and again not specific value.


Ergo gravity is not observed by humans as having a frequency of sine-wave, as EMRadiation clearly does for many years now.


Do you understand what Gravity and Dark Energy are why metaphysical, Gem?

Sure. I understand the concept.

Well good that is a start. Dyson used postive and negative energy even tho gravity has not been quantified nor quantised{ quanta/gravitons }.


I dont know what value Dyson would give Dark Energy even tho it is the opposite of Gravity. He has already used the opposite quality to characterzise all fermions and bosons.

Dark energy is essentially the same as the energy density of space.

Lumber ergo atoms occupies space ergo a density and has a shape.



Gravity ( ) occupies space ergo a density and has a shape.



Concrete occupies space ergo a density and has a shape.



Dark Energy )( occupies space ergo a density and has a shape.


Photons{ /\/\/ } occupies space ergo a density and has and associated shape{ /\/\/ }.


Occupied space has a density and shape that is defined in three basic ways;


Gravity ( ) ergo gravitions{ presumed } and is positive curvature shape geodesic space


Dark Energy )( ergo darkions{ presumed } and is negative )( curvature

You cosmological model is explained using a torus.

Please show me any statements where I state Universe has a toroidal/tous shape? My Cosmic Hiearchial Outline that includes the cosmic trinity inherently is all inclusive ergo from largest cosmological events Universe/Uni-V-erse,


to the smallest photons, netutrinos, gravity{ ultra-micro ergo metaphysical } and dark energy{ ultra-micro ergo metaphysical }.


I believe gravitons and darkions{ if they exist or can exist } have a shape associated with curved triangular dipyramidal shape ex <>.


All other quanta of Universe I believe have shape associated with a combination of two or more tori.


The tori based{ shaped } particles aggregate into atoms{ have shape } that aggregate as molecules{ have shape } biologicals{ varied shapes } planets{ spherical } galaxies{ narrow set of variation } clusters and super clusters of galaxies{ stringy filiments similar to patterns Ive seen in association with biological brain }.

I posted two links in these regards. Did you look and those animations, Gem?

Dark energy is what makes space itself expand, so it causes the galaxies to drift apart.

Your not getting a basic fact, or I believe is fact and in the Cosmic Oultine.


When ever you keep trying something called space as in "space/time" { one of your statements } or how others often referred to this SPACE as space-time etc, is that this space in your space/time or space-time,


comes into fundamental shapes;


Gravity ( ) ergo positive shaped space{ or so I speculate }



Dark energy )( negative shaped space{ or so I speculated }



Observe Time is associated with frequency ^v^v ergo sine-wave pattern shape /\/\/ and is well documented for many years.


And I laid this out clearly for you to contemplate/ponder. Did you ponder/contemplate those presentations, Gem?



Here I post it again from message #105
..."No, reread I did not say what you have projected above .."space/time"...

Observed Time is the sine-wave pattern ^v^v /\/\/{ aka 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 etc } inside the tube i.e. the internal body or organs of the toroidal tube. Gravity ( ) and dark energy )( are only associtated with surface curvature

( )( ) = bisection/cross-section of torus

^v^v or as /\/\/ is derived from invaginations, inversions at peak of positive and negative curvature of torus ergo a bisction/cross-section including Observed Time inversions/invaginations looks more like this (><)(><)

This above was derived from my exploration of prime numbers in four levels/line format/orientation.All of that is explained in one or more threads here at SF.".....


Again that is NOT my view of the dynamic shape of Universe outer boundaries.

In that sense it is repulsive. But dark energy is constant throughout space, unlike gravity which is stronger aroung more massive bodies. EMR refers to the 'light spectrum' and I'm not aware of that having any repulsive effect.

Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( are the space in "space/time" or space-time or space and time. Do you understand, Gem?


We've seen these terms since we were children and my Cosmic Outline is specifically clarifying what "space" is and what "time" is. My Cosmic Outline, presents that distinctly differrent "space" associated shapes.

Yes it is inward pulling in the sense that mass creates curvature in space time, so say hypothetically that gravity would cause the galaxies to converge, creating an ever increasing mass in a 'central location'. Space time would then have extreme curvature which would represent the contraction of space time itself... in a manner of speaking.

No, mass{ physical/energy } is Observed Time and all mass as fermions has associated frequency ^v^v ergo sine-wave pattern /\/\/ shape. See my Cosmic Outline. I'm very clear there.


Space, as Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( may curve because Observed Time ^v^v or as /\/\/. I dunno. I just follow my geo-numerical explorations.



If Gravity ( ) and Dark Energy )( surround and embrace the Observed Time /\/\/ as my geo-numerical torus presents, the question is why are Gravity and Dark Energy doing these geo-desics?


And why would the invert/invaginate at the peak of positive and negative curvature? I'm exploring the essence of "space" as propose by "space/time" or space-time etc.


And this exploration leads into can we have truly non-occupied space within Universe. Again, my venture into the wholistic outline recently was to answer your question stated inferrred in that direction.


And it eventually leads to geometry, but first we have to have some common agreements about the three primary kinds of space.

I can't remember mentioning zero energy. Just that the sum of positive matter and negative gravity adds up to zero.

Well you did and I can find it if I must. I pointed out then that I didnt state that, as you inferred, becuase It goes off on a unrelated tangent that is so popular disscussed on the net, that Ive none of my comments really directly were related too.


Zero is the opposite of energy{ something/occupied space } ergo makes not sense, and all of my explorations strive to make rational logical common sense conclusions about Universe and all of its parts.

Classical physics isn't consistent with QM, but what it boils down to is the conservation of energy.

As I stated occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed.


Gravity{ metaphysical-3/spirit-3 } and Dark Energy{ metaphysical-4/spirit-4 } but cannot be in my physical/energy catagory, in Cosmic Outline untill they have a specific quantification{ quanta value } or quantization{ quanta value } Do you understand where I'm coming from, Gem?

Yes, I earlier outlined the geometry showing that some arrangements are not possible.

Yeah we went over that a year or so ago. it didnt end well but you may appear to understand there exist metaphysical ---except for non-occupied space--- and physical limits.


There can only exist five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Universe. Inviolate ergo eternal cosmic principle. DO you understand that Gem?

Oh, he who throws the first polyhedron hath not sinned ay? Teehee.

Yes sinned in that Universe is tainted or at least all parts of Universe are tainted i.e. has some qualities of shape{ positive negative flat } or charged{ + - } or spin{ left-right } or taste/flavor or color, or expansion-contraction etc.


The metaphysical-1 concepts are not tainted i.e. have no energy, have no spin, have no charge ergo not tainted with occupied space qualities/character etc.


Gravity and dark energy are not physical/energy in my Cosmic Outline but they have shape.

I can't comment on religion because ma mamma always tole me if have nothing nice to say; don't say anything

I see good and bad in religion. There is rational logical common sense in religion and there is not. Both are contained there. Each individual has to decide what part of it they want to express.


But I still want to get back to can "empty" space --ergo non-occupied space exist within Universe.


It cannot. You dont grasp my Cosmic Outline well enough to yet grasp why non-occupied space cannot exist within occupied space Universe.


This explanation uses geometry and goes back to my explorations in 90's, before I used the terms occupied and non-occupied space.