Your still confused Zayel and not have addressed my comments as stated and certainly have not offerred any rational logical common sense to invalidate them.Like I have said before, it is obvious that how particles/energy orients in space is non-complex enough to be identified as mathematical shapes/patterns.
Your above is meaningless to me utill you can begin connecting it something specific I said. You have not done that.
Ive been very clear. When you want to address a specific comment by me then please do so.Perhaps you are trying to say that you have identified some of these patterns by studying the random occurrence of prime numbers or some numerical sequences?
If my scenarios, based on numerical patterns and torus as gravity, dark energy and observed time/reality/sine-wave/frequency ^v \/\/\ are true, then they are ground breaking to those who recognize them as truths.If so I would say that it is interesting. However it is nothing groundbreaking nor does it determine something more fundamental unless you can point out what the fundamental properties are.
I think your qualitative interpretations are baseless. Let us look at your claims point for point.
PLease share when you have any rational, logical common sense that invalidates them or adds to them. You do not because you have not.
1. Saying that metaphysical/intellect is seperate from physics is baseless.Rr6 wrote:1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
If you believe that, then you really have no idea of the differrence betwween metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and physcial/energy of occupied space, gravity of occupied space and dark energy of occupied space. I'm sorry Zyale but your really clueless if you think metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.
You believe false ideas all you want but it is irrrational, illogical and lacks any common sense. Many in this forum believe many false ideas.
Pointing out that it is not refutable is pointless because nothing can be proven. Logic however indicates that physics and "metaphysics" is the same.
Ive told you before and telly you again, since your recall abilities are lacking in this area, I offer no proofs.
2. Where did infinite come from? How do you know that space is infinite? Again this assumption is baseless.Rr6 wrote:2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,
Macro-infinite non-occupied space does not come from anywhere. Your still confused about simple basics of Universe and what lies beyond. I will repeat this again, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists eternally outside of,-- ergo beyond --our finite, occupied space Universe. This is simple stuff Zayle. I think most 16 years can grasp these simple truths.
We only see a finite occupied space Universe ergo based on that info, we can infer that what is outside of our finite, occupied space Universe is macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is simple stuff that you just want to avoid accepting as rational, logical common sense. Why you do that can be many reaons. Most often, my experience has been ego based mental blockage to rational, logical common sense conclusions that I believe are true.
Rr6 wrote:3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse
Yes, Uni is also blue as is gravity many times that IVe posted over last 20 years. Gravity cohere's Universe as a unified whole. If you don't understand then you don't understand gravity.Are you trying to point out that occupied space is just one single unity by saying highlighting the word "Uni"? In physics different particles are understood as occupying just small portions of space between each other.
You obviously understand little to nothing what exists in space between particles and between Earth and moon so on so on. many years when the did American Masters on R Feynman he made clear that space is filled with stuff. You must be very young.
Rr6 wrote:"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?
God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.
There are two statments above. First you need to have understand that fact. Then maybe you can see your question is foggy as your not clear to what specifcally I stated. Reread and address only one statement at a time because you dont seem to be able to differrentiatt two differrent concepts or hierarchies etc...Are you trying to say that God is just the physical universe and its processes, or do you put anything more than that into what you label as "God"?
Bible is irrelevant to my comments. I think your very confused.Nobody can prove that the Bible is wrong either even if it is clearly a book of fairytales. So even if you cannot disprove the Bible doesn't mean you should believe that for example Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. So coming with the "you cannot disprove" argument is completely irrelevant.
PLease share when you can actually address specific statements by me, with rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates those specific concepts Ive presented, You have not even come close to doing that.I would conclude the following: