Why does God have to be perfect?

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

It should be said I was disappointed at the complete dismissal of my comments because it didn't accord with his preconditioned ideas. He could have contrasted one with the other in a considered way.

As Steve remarked this is what Syamsu did too. Do you think it might be a defensive strategy, being aggressive, giving nothing away, in order to protect one's ego?

[Sy Borg]

Greta wrote:

It should be said I was disappointed at the complete dismissal of my comments because it didn't accord with his preconditioned ideas. He could have contrasted one with the other in a considered way.

As Steve remarked this is what Syamsu did too. Do you think it might be a defensive strategy, being aggressive, giving nothing away, in order to protect one's ego?

I think what happens is that, as with math, one can take a line of interest and, if normal skepticism is not applied along the way, then one can take that concept as far as it goes - extrapolating, extending and progressing the developing hypothesis to the point where it becomes so disconnected from mainstream thought that they are unable to find links back to established science. The problem was not questioning in the first place and not taking warning signs seriously, seemingly due to a wish for their pet project to be true. The reasons for that may vary but I posit that the motivations are far more personal that such people often wish to admit.

An example of how ideas can fly off the handle, do you remember my little hypothesis about time dilation and a possible subjective afterlife? I wondered if, as we approach death, whether the growing time dilation of the dying brain could possibly deliver an eternal dream afterlife happening in the last few seconds of brain activity. I could have followed this through further, assessing reports about NDEs, dreams and time dilation. Maybe work out some variants - Time "D"ilation and Time "Dil"ation or somesuch.

Then I ran into an article describing neuropsych research suggesting that dream events and real time measured a 1:1 correlation. So the effect of time dilation was simply the omission of dull, everyday events; like movies, dreams just focus on the big events.

So that idea faded back (although such subjective information compression is interesting in itself). However, a different personality may have been too wedded to their idea to accept the contrary evidence.

[Belinda]

Greta,

The problem was not questioning in the first place and not taking warning signs seriously, seemingly due to a wish for their pet project to be true. The reasons for that may vary but I posit that the motivations are far more personal that such people often wish to admit.

I think so , combined with what you wrote about pet projects. I have one or two, which I cling to as if they are part of my own identity. I like to compare and contrast what others are saying with my pet projects. I believe that it's good and proper to do so because subjectivity is the basis of learning, you can't learn if you are initially a blank paper. So NDEs may be your springboard to learning. I am pretty sure that motivations are personal and emotional, and largely learned. Women are fortunate that we can accept this without inhibition.

Stubbornness doesn't help anyone to learn but to those in dire straits defensiveness can be perceived as the only option. Reminds me of dogs in rescue kennels. Many have had unhappy lives and their trust in people might be broken to the extent that they seem to be aggressive when they are really afraid and defensive.

[Rr6]

Oh my God Greta appears to have understood at least two words I wrote as synonyms. Then she or some intellectually superior moderator goes and deletes half the truths I posted regarding other members here.

I think I see a clique of people here who do not truly want to have intellectual discussion. And the only truth the only truth they seek, is a truth they speak, not others.

They deleted words malarkey, moral integrity and few others that they don't want to hear because they were spoken truths as stated. This is more evidence of my statements regarding Universe/God as not perfect.

And I thought philosophers were supposed people with open mind to pursuit of truth, justice and the philosophical way.

r6
[quote="Rr6"]
"U"niverse/God;

...1a) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept i.e. concepts of Space, God, Universe Concepts etc.....

3) Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not tainted physically i.e they have no color, no taste, no mass, no charge, no spin etc......

...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space,

....1c} finite, occupied space Universe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God as "U"niverse is both perfect and not.
God as Universe/UniVerse is never perfect.

This is not color formatted ...

[Misty]

First of all Misty, you have to understand that I have at least two definitions of the word Universe. There both in my cosmic hierarchy--- maybe in other threads and maybe this one --as reference for just such questions.

To make the distinct two or more definitions of same words I used some textual formatting and in some case color coding in addition.

"U"niverse/God;

...1a) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept i.e. concepts of Space, God, Universe Concepts etc.....

3) Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not tainted physically i.e they have no color, no taste, no mass, no charge, no spin etc......

In this sense they can be considered to be in there perfect existence i.e. they are not tainted with physical properties that I mention above and more not mentioned.

...3a) For concepts that are absolute truths, this perfection is more valid, if only superficially so, in that, they eternally existent ergo inviolate.

Ex from there we can go to another level of conceptual perfection in our consideration of the five and only five possible regularly/symmetrical--- perfect in their geometric sense regular/symmetrical ergo a type of equilibrium --polyhedra of Universe.

There exist many more absolute truths that humans believe exist. Laws of conservation. Finite speed-of-radiation. I would say some of my conjecture in my cosmic hierarchy is also absolute truth. Absolute mean true everywhere in our finite, occupied space Unviverse and true everywhen i.e eternally true.

2) Universe/God aka UniVerse; ergo occupied space
......putting aside gravity and dark energy, we know that all fermions and bosons-- or any collection thereof ex a human ---are tainted in some way of having color, mass, weight, spin, charge, smell, etc......

So again, "U"niverse or as "U"niverse/God--- slash / represents that two words are synonyms --- is the terminology that is wholistically most inclusive because and that defined as 1a, 1b and 1c in my cosmic hierarchy ergo perfect and not perfect exist within the concept of "U"niverse as Ive defined it.

The above "U"niverse/God includes Universe/UniVerse as #2 in my cosmic hierarchy. So teh Universe at top of hierarcy is considerate of both perfection and imperfect( tainted }. And also note that macro-infinite non-occupied space{ 1b } is also perfect in its own way that is sparate from 1a, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

You can also see in my signature, various terminologies for same word. "U"niverse has the italicized 'U" ergo it is corresponds directly to I-verse in my signature ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept as each of creating our own personal I-verse persona.

Hope that helps. These are relatively simple concepts to grasp and laid out similar to the way many table of contents of a book are sometimes laid out i.e. a top to bottom hierarchical list.

The other end of that would be bottom-to-top hierarchical list/outline and also offer that. Most books do the top-to-bottom approach of categorization. Or as R. B Fuller like to state, beginning with the whole and no parts can be left out.

My bottom to top hierarchy directly corresponds to my #2 in my cosmic hierarchy that is expressed as UniVerse

Here again, the formatting I have attempted to use consistently over the years have specific reasons.

Uni{ blue } relates specifically to gravity.

V( red } capitalized relates specifically to observed time as sine-wave pattern/frequency{ ^v }

erse( dark red } relates specifically to dark energy.

I'll leave it there and spare the specific geometrical patterns I associate with those three as toroidal vectors that wholistic universe because I believe there pattern is in every particle of Universe.

r6

Rr6, Am I correct that "U"niverse/God = the unseen (spiritual or non physical) and Universe/God = the seen (physical)?

Also dark red = dark energy, what is dark energy?

Thanks, Misty

[Rr6]

Misty---Rr6, Am I correct that "U"niverse/God = the unseen (spiritual or non physical) and Universe/God = the seen (physical)?,

Yes and no just as I stated elsewhere in this post. "U"niverse has three subcategories ergo the word 'U"niverse is inclusive of 1a, 1b and 1c and 1c is our finite, occupied space Universe.

You have not read, or do not understand how a hierarchical outline list ex table contents functions.

In the cosmic hierarchy we begin with the the word I use the word "U"niverse to represent the comprehensively wholistic set. This is why it is at the top of the cosmic hierarchy and why I also make use God or "G"od as synonym to "U"niverse, in order fit the definition some peoples understanding of what God is. My given hierarchy is top to bottom approach.

"U"niverse or "U"niverse/God equals the following three that I have laid out clearly in my cosmic hierarchy.

1)
U"niverse;

...1a) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Space, Universe, Concepts etc.....are not seen with eyeballs or any other technology. We only see concepts expressed and communicated via occupied space phenomena, ex pixels on a screen or air molecule frequencies as sound interfering with hairs in our eyes and skin.
...spirit-1 ergo spirit-of-intent......

1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space, we do not see, we deduce its existence via the facts of our having only observations of a finite Universe, and our rational, logical common sense understanding of integrity corresponding to finite structural or systemic parts of our finite, occupied space Universe.

1c} our finite, occupied space Universe/UniVerse and we do observe this finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse.

We do not observe{ quantize or quantify ) gravity directly so my use of color blue( Uni ) associated with gravity is not technically correct, and more so for my dark red color for erse as being assoicated to dark energy since dark energy is not even indirectly detected.

Hope that makes clear how read a hierarchial outline/list ex as table of contents.

Also dark red = dark energy, what is dark energy? Thanks, Misty

Misty, nobody knows what dark energy is. It is a name/identity/label assigned to an unseen phenomena, that appears to cause or space-time to expand with acceleration. Previous to the new data our Universe was only known to be expanding. Now that speed, whatever it was, is accelerating.

As I stated in previous reply to you, some scientists and myself believe dark energy to 2nd property of space-time along with gravity.

With my bottom to top hierarchical approach, we positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space,

Negative shaped geodesic dark energy surface arcs as Space. also, yet there opposite each other and connected.

Between and as inversions from surface arcs of gravity and surface arcs of dark energy, is the our observed body/reality of time, as frequency and statically conceptualized as a sine-wave pattern/frequency{ ^v }.

Ergo I believe our new concept of Space-Time should be identified as Space-Time-Space

There is much more to scenarios involving the mechanisms of gravity, time and dark energy defining a toroidal tubes of every particle of occupied space Universe, perhaps only barring any alleged graviton or quantum particle that may become associated with dark energy{ darkion? }

r6

[Steve3007]

I'm interested in Rr6's words here, as I have been interested in the words of very similar characters who have appeared on these forums over the years. I think the reason I keep returning to cases like this is that I find the ways in which we human beings attempt to communicate with each other, and fail to do so, endlessly fascinating. We're all, to a greater or lesser extent, trapped behind the frustrating barriers imposed by language. We all, to a greater or lesser extent, struggle to find the right words to explain what we're thinking in our primitive languages.

It's also relevant to my work. I currently have to exchange fairly complex technical design ideas with people who don't speak English as a first language and whose language I don't speak. It can be extraordinarily difficult. It strikes me that two of the main things that get in the way of effective communication are:

1. The effect of numerous grammatical and spelling errors which individually seem trivial but which have a cumulative effect.
2. An inability to think oneself into the mind of one's reader and pitch the message at the right level with appropriate explanations of terminology.

The second half of Rr6's post is, I think, particularly interesting in this respect. I spent some time reading and re-reading it, speaking it aloud to trying to make sense of it and, when I failed to make any significant sense of it, trying to analyze why.

This is the part I'm referring to in its entirety:

Misty, nobody knows what dark energy is. It is a name/identity/label assigned to an unseen phenomena, that appears to cause or space-time to expand with acceleration. Previous to the new data our Universe was only known to be expanding. Now that speed, whatever it was, is accelerating.

As I stated in previous reply to you, some scientists and myself believe dark energy to 2nd property of space-time along with gravity.

With my bottom to top hierarchical approach, we positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space,

Negative shaped geodesic dark energy surface arcs as Space. also, yet there opposite each other and connected.

Between and as inversions from surface arcs of gravity and surface arcs of dark energy, is the our observed body/reality of time, as frequency and statically conceptualized as a sine-wave pattern/frequency{ ^v }.

Ergo I believe our new concept of Space-Time should be identified as Space-Time-Space

There is much more to scenarios involving the mechanisms of gravity, time and dark energy defining a toroidal tubes of every particle of occupied space Universe, perhaps only barring any alleged graviton or quantum particle that may become associated with dark energy{ darkion? }

The first paragraph is reasonably lucid and grammatically correct, so long as the reader has at least heard of the concept of "dark energy" and the role it plays in modern theories of Cosmology. After that, it starts to make some unexplained assertions, using unexplained terminology and poor grammar. It gradually deteriorates from there. (I've placed corrections to the grammar in square brackets):

As I stated in previous reply to you, some scientists and myself believe dark energy to [be the] 2nd property of space-time along with gravity.

There has been no significant introduction to the concept of space-time, and what it means for something to be a property of space-time, but I think we're still relatively lucid here. We're saying that this space-time thing has two properties which we call gravity and dark energy. We can suspend our curiosity as to what this might mean in terms of things we can actually observe, on the assumption that it will be explained later. As we will see, that assumption proves to be unfounded.

With my bottom to top hierarchical approach, we positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space,

Here is where it starts to deteriorate. It's not clear whether the above is supposed to be a sentence in its own right, and the comma has been mistakenly placed there instead of a full-stop/period, or whether the quote below is part of the same sentence. In either case, the clause "we positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space" is difficult to make sense of. The word "we" is the first person plural, so one would expect it to be followed by a verb, but "positive" is not a verb.

Perhaps it is supposed to say something like: "we regard positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space.". If so, it is still unexplained what this means in terms of observable reality.

Negative shaped geodesic dark energy surface arcs as Space. also, yet there opposite each other and connected.

It is also entirely unexplained, here or elsewhere, what is meant in this context by a "positive shape" and a "negative shape". Remember that this is being explained for the first time to somebody who cannot be guaranteed to have any knowledge of the concept that space or space-time has a shape and what it means for that shape to be "positive" or "negative". We can speculate that these words are being used in the way that a physicist/mathematician might use them, to mean the second derivative of a graph of some quantity against some other quantity is negative (for a positive shape) or positive (for a negative shape) but in the absence of other information we have no way to know if this is the intended meaning.

It then deteriorates further:

Between and as inversions from surface arcs of gravity and surface arcs of dark energy, is the our observed body/reality of time, as frequency and statically conceptualized as a sine-wave pattern/frequency{ ^v }.

Here, it remains entirely unexplained where sine waves come in. We have been given the vague notion that there is some kind of surface and that curving that surface one way results in gravity and curving it another way results in dark energy. But we don't know what it means to be "between" or "as inversions from" those surfaces.

We are then presented with something that look as though it is supposed to be an inevitable conclusion from the above:

Ergo I believe our new concept of Space-Time should be identified as Space-Time-Space

There is no explanation of what it means to be "Space-Time-Space". Then there is some more unexplained allusions to toroidal tubes.

I will presumably be told that this is all common sense and that I am stupid not to be able to understand immediately what these various pseudo-sentences mean. It would be interesting to see two of these kinds of characters attempting to communicate with each other, where each would presumably accuse the other of being willfully blind to the obvious sense of what they are saying.

-- Updated Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:07 pm to add the following --

Note: I made a grammatical error myself early in this post when I said: "...speaking it aloud to trying to make sense of it..." where I should have said: "...speaking it aloud to try to make sense of it...". It is easily done.

-- Updated Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:13 pm to add the following --

There is yet another grammatical error on my part, near the end of my post: "Then there is some more unexplained allusions to toroidal tubes." should read: "Then there are some more unexplained allusions to toroidal tubes.".

[Alec Smart]

I find the ways in which we human beings attempt to communicate with each other, and fail to do so, endlessly fascinating.

You're definitely in the right place then.

[Rr6]

I find the ways in which we human beings attempt to communicate with each other, and fail to do so, endlessly fascinating.

You're definitely in the right place then.

Unlike Alec Smart, Wayne does not state that he cannot understand a single word of it. Such statements as that by you are malarkey. imho

You still to acknowlege that you can grasp the word God and more so after I reference it to "U"niverse or Universe or UniVerse[/color, and those are out in my cosmic hierarchy in easy to read and grasp/understand/comprehend outline/list that many also us as a table of contents.

No need to reply this post Alec Smart as we already know what you have to say in regard to anything I state here at Philo Forums.

You have no rational, logical common sense comments to offer in regards to anything I've stated. Nobody here expects or believes, that, you ever will.

Now on to Wayne's reply to who shown us some considerate moral integrity by being considerate of my comments, as stated. Thank you Wayne. Wed need more like you at Philo forums. imho

r6

-- Updated April 13th, 2016, 7:01 pm to add the following --

Oops I mis-spoke Steve3 for Wayne, Sorry Steve, my bad.

Steve3007---1. The effect of numerous grammatical and spelling errors which individually seem trivial but which have a cumulative effect.

Thank you Steve for your consideration and mostly accurate accounting of my post to Misty, which, as many posts, I tend get done in a hurry. Again my bad. However, you have read much of the same content in my cosmic hierarchy, so your or any who have read it, have a basis of reference for all dissicussion that follows. And I believe that is what Ive stated early to you and others when posting my cosmic hierarchy

2. An inability to think oneself into the mind of one's reader and pitch the message at the right level with appropriate explanations of terminology.

Here you have to more careful. As this can lead to dumb-ing of the content, or context, or specifically precise meaning as stated, if stated grammatically correct. Most of my words are spelled correctly. Better to use the words that best convey what is meant than to use words that do not.

The reader can ask if they have questions.

The second half of Rr6's post is, I think, particularly interesting in this respect. I spent some time reading and re-reading it, speaking it aloud to trying to make sense of it and, when I failed to make any significant sense of it, trying to analyze why.

This is the part I'm referring to in its entirety:

r6--
Misty, nobody knows what dark energy is

.
C,mon Steve, you don't understand that line of text? I think you do.

Instead of going through the entirety of text you offered as...' failled to make sense of it'....I again would ask that you or any reader to address the specific word or line of text.

r6--It is a name/identity/label assigned to an unseen phenomena, that appears to cause our space-time to expand with acceleration.

There I corrected the one word or to our.

r6---
Previous to the new data our Universe was only known to be expanding. Now that speed, whatever it was, is accelerating.

If you cant understand then you will have to ask. This is well known info in physics since the the observation of accelerating expansion of Universe. Simple to grasp. imho

As I stated in previous reply to you, some scientists and myself believe dark energy to be a 2nd property of space-time along with gravity.

Ok Steve, you corrected grammar and so have I. If you still do not understand then I can assist you. Also Steve, you also come across as if I have to post a 50 page thesis on each cosmological phenomena before I can state my cosmic hierarchy or whatever. Again, people can ask. Misty ask what dark energy is and have give rational, logical common sense answers.

So once again Steve, as Ive asked of you in other thread{s}, please share with us a rational, logical common sense statement that invalidates my comments as stated, You have not done that ever. So, as the ole saying goes...'keep it real''... saying goes, please Steve, keep it real in regards to my concepts scenarios whatever.

With my bottom-to-top, hierarchical approach, we have positive shaped, geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space,

Somewhere in my post if not both replies to Misty I did what I know about space-time, that it has the property of gravity. You seem to infer someplace that I was suppose to define what space-time is to misty. She did not ask that. What I did do is try and show that, the space aspect of space-time is directly related to the property of gravity. That is my speculations.

If you want to offer a definition of what space-time, is then please do so as a true aid to all of us better understanding. Your inference or implications of my offering a 20 page thesis on what is space-time, or anything else that Misty did not specifically ask me about is not fair.

Please play fair Steve.

Negative shaped, geodesic dark energy surface arcs, as Space also, yet there opposite each other and connected.

Here above I corrected at leas one error. Also Steve, I'm not a grammar specialist and nearly flunked many of my subjects in 10oth and two month into my 11th grade. If you still cannot understand above I can assist you. However, all of what I posted to Misty was just a quick, off top of my head, overview of my bottom-to-top hierarchial set of mechanisms for I what I believe will be re-labled as Space-Time-Space.

I was not offering my longest well thought out versions, that, also come with visuals and more better explained. That wholistic scenario is for a whole other thread on its own. This above just is just a bit of superficial icing on my Space-Time-Space cake/scenario

So I'm going to stop there because I don't think your really care about any scenarios I have to offer. There may exist differrent reasons for that. Primarily I think it is you do not have the intellectual backgorund to offer any rational, logical common sense comments that invalidate any of my concepts in any hierarchy Ive posted or could post.

As I stated in previous reply to you, some scientists, and myself, believe dark energy to [be the] 2nd property of space-time along with gravity.

Thank you Steve, you nailed my error on the head.

There has been no significant introduction to the concept of space-time, and what it means for something to be a property of space-time, but I think we're still relatively lucid here.

How many pages of text do you want Steve? Space-time concept/scenario has been around 100 years or more now. This thread is about God and I and I believe many people think of God as Universe or cosmos or everything that exists etc........If you have rational, logical common sense comment that helps reader to understand what space-time is then you can add it.

You havent done that or anything like that in pretty much any post I've made here at Philo Forums. I appreciate your grammar corrections, that is useful. Do you want to be more useful Steve? If yes then again, offer us additional info that is descriptive and helps others to grasp the concepts I'm orbiting around, or, offer us some rational, logical common sense comments, that, invalidate my comments as stated.

We're saying that this space-time thing has two properties which we call gravity and dark energy. We can suspend our curiosity as to what this might mean in terms of things we can actually observe, on the assumption that it will be explained later. As we will see, that assumption proves to be unfounded.

Gravity is well known to be a property of space-time. I'm stating what I speculate dark energy to be, a 2nd property of space-time ergo my re-identification as Space-Time-Space

Also Steve, I touched on some of this stuff in another reply to Misty, previously in this same thread. So it is not the first time she has any reference to it. And if she has seen and read my any of my cosmic hierarchy posting then she is thrice or more considerate of these concepts.

As you and others may very well be also. My previous post was not your first time with these scenarios/concepts.

With my bottom-to-top, hierarchical approach, we have a positive shaped, geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space.

I've corrected the above quote as best as I know how Steve. If you, Misty or anyone else has need of assistance to understand more, just ask.

Perhaps it is supposed to say something like: "we regard positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space.". If so, it is still unexplained what this means in terms of observable reality.

C,mon Steve, nowhere have I ever stated, that, the above is observed reality. And that is true also in my cosmic hierarchy. Now if want to get into what and how gravity is a function of space-time that deals with curved space, I can send you too many scientific web sites that do just that.

r6--Negative shaped geodesic dark energy surface arcs as Space. also, yet there opposite each other and connected.

Steve--
It is also entirely unexplained, here or elsewhere, what is meant in this context by a "positive shape" and a "negative shape".

It is a superficial lead-in to a more in depth set of concepts, as more involve scenario Steve. You want a 10 page dissertation or thesis in reply to Misty where she did not ask about any of this? Get real Steve3007.

Steve--Remember that this is being explained for the first time to somebody who cannot be guaranteed to have any knowledge of the concept that space or space-time has a shape and what it means for that shape to be "positive" or "negative". We can speculate that these words are being used in the way that a physicist/mathematician might use them, to mean the second derivative of a graph of some quantity against some other quantity is negative (for a positive shape) or positive (for a negative shape) but in the absence of other information we have no way to know if this is the intended meaning.

If you want the long version you, Misty or anyone can ask. Get real Steve.

r6--Between and as inversions from surface arcs of gravity and surface arcs of dark energy, is the our observed body/reality of time, as frequency and statically conceptualized as a sine-wave pattern/frequency{ ^v }.

teve--
Here, it remains entirely unexplained where sine waves come in.

Thats not true Steve. If you cannot read the line of text as all of the words being relate to each other in specific scenario, then you need assistance. Based on your comments your ignoring most of the words in that line of text. You apparently have no idea what and inversion is, or that I state clearly that there comming from surface arcs of gravity and dark energy.

If you want a 5 page explanations with visuals, then I can do that. So please get real here Steve, and play fair.
Misty did not ask for a 5, 10, 20 page explanation with visuals, yet you want to imply I should have done all of that if not more in my reply to her question.

Your way out of bounds with this lack of fair play Steve.

We have been given the vague notion that there is some kind of surface and that curving that surface one way results in gravity and curving it another way results in dark energy. But we don't know what it means to be "between" or "as inversions from" those surfaces.

I gave you my cosmic hierarchy Steve, you never replied with any rational, logical common sense statements that invalidated my comments as stated, nor added too or corrected my cosmic hierarchy. So even if you ask for much longer explanation for my bottom-to-top mechanisms for the existence of our finite, occupied space Universe, I doubt you would have any little to

Ergo I believe our new concept of Space-Time should be identified as Space-Time-Space

Yeah that is one of many conclusions I have to offer. You have not given any rational, logical common sense comments in regards to them here or in any other thread.

[quoteSteve--]There is no explanation of what it means to be "Space-Time-Space". Then there is some more unexplained allusions to toroidal tubes.

First part of your comment is not true. If you actually want more then you or others can ask. Beyond your help in grammatical errors of mine, you really add nothing of significance to my commentary. What is the word for what our doing? Hyperbole?

r6--I will presumably be told that this is all common sense and that I am stupid not to be able to understand immediately what these various pseudo-sentences mean. It would be interesting to see two of these kinds of characters attempting to communicate with each other, where each would presumably accuse the other of being willfully blind to the obvious sense of what they are saying.

Much of what I state in these threads is common sense and is clear in the cosmic hierarchy. You obviously have had bone to pick with me since your first reading of my cosmic hierarchy and your reply too it, that had no rational, logical common sense comments, that, invalidated any of what I laid out in very clear, outline/list that many would refer to as a table of contents.

Yeah my Space-Time Space mechanisms involve the shape of a torus. Unlike Greta who seem to think I was saying the Universe is shaped like a torus, I stated then, and in reply to Misty, once or twice now, that the Space-Time-Space tori are basic to every particle of Universe--- except maybe gravity and dark energy ---, and not necessarily the shape or our finite, occupied space Universe.

I have rational, logical common sense ideas, based on observations humans have made. I'm just trying to fit them in to the thread where I think they relate and are relevant. Does anyone here besides Misty want to have intellectually stimulating conversations that is rational, logical, common sense and also want to play fair?

r6

[Alec Smart]

Rr6 Wrote

Such statements as that by you are malarkey. imho
.

I don't know what a statement that consists of malarkey is but I think it safe to assume that you don't mean it as a term of admiration.

. You still to acknowlege that you can grasp the word God and more so after I reference it to "U"niverse or Universe or UniVerse[/color, and those are out in my cosmic hierarchy in easy to read and grasp/understand/comprehend outline/list that many also us as a table of contents.

I'm afraid my knowledge of English grammar falls well short of enabling me to make anything of this.

. No need to reply this post Alec Smart as we already know what you have to say in regard to anything I state here at Philo Forums

Don't worry Rr6, I have no intention of replying to your post. Yes, I'm sure everybody knows what I have to say but the issue is that nobody has got the slightest idea of what you have to say (that's what I would have said, had I replied to your post).

[Rr6]

You still have yet to acknowledge that you can grasp the word God and more so after I reference it to "U"niverse or Universe or UniVerse[/color, and those are out in my cosmic hierarchy in easy to read and grasp/understand/comprehend outline/list that many also us as a table of contents. [/quote]

There, I corrected some grammar errors. You said you couldn't understand a single word I made comments in regards to God = Universe when I used proper grammar and here above your no different.

No need to reply this post Alec Smart as we already know what you have to say in regard to anything I state here at Philo Forums, with correct or a missing comma. You have not any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my comments, as stated.

Don't worry Rr6, I have no intention of replying to your post. Yes, I'm sure everybody knows what I have to say but the issue is that nobody has got the slightest idea of what you have to say (that's what I would have said, had I replied to your post).

Now you believe I'm worried that you will make a rational, logical comment sense statement that invalidates any of my comments as stated. Now you border on being delusional. This is another reason what God is not perfect.

r6

[Alec Smart]

Now you believe I'm worried that you will make a rational, logical comment sense statement that invalidates any of my comments as stated. Now you border on being delusional. This is another reason what God is not perfect.

r6

Neither can you invalidate my comments. I am saying that nobody can understand what you are banging on about. So, I invite you to produce a logical argument proving this assertion false.

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

C,mon Steve, you don't understand that line of text? I think you do.

Instead of going through the entirety of text you offered as...' failled to make sense of it'....I again would ask that you or any reader to address the specific word or line of text.

I did not say that I did not understand that particular line of text. I spent quite a lot of time going through each line of text, stating which parts were relatively easy to understand and which parts simply don't make sense. I tried to analyze in detail why they don't make sense. I urge you to read my comments in the way that I have read yours.

If you actually want more then you or others can ask.

I have asked and all I get in reply is the more of the same.

Let me focus on a single aspect of what you've said - the five regular Pythagorean/Platonic solids¹. I've asked about your interest in them before and I'll ask again. I think it would be useful for you to practice replying in plain English sentences without all the abbreviations and colour schemes. It won't be "dumbing down" as you put it. It will be explaining your thoughts in commonly accessible language.

In your view, what is the significance of the five regular solids? Are you influenced by the ancient Greek ideas about them? You will recall that the first four were associated by the ancient Greeks with the four "elements" (Earth, Water, Air and Fire) and that the 5th was seen as representing a sort of spiritual, non-physical, all-pervasive fifth element. This is the original of the terms "quintessential" and "quintessence". It is an idea that has had a pervasive influence.

Is it these kinds of ancient ideas, and other ancient ideas about mathematics, that lead you to pick the five regular solids for special mention when describing your hierarchy?

If you could try to answer just these questions for now then I think we would be making some progress.

---

Note 1: The five regular solids are objects in 3 dimensional space whose surfaces are composed entirely of regular polygons with no gaps. (A regular polygon is a flat two dimensional shape with sides of equal length.) An example is a cube. Its surface is made from 6 squares. A square is a regular polygon because it has 4 sides of equal length.

Another example is a tetrahedron. It has 4 sides, each of which is an equilateral triangle.

It was proved by one or more ancient Greeks ( I think Pythagoras was among them) that there are only 5 of these solids: tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosahedron and dodecahedron. A key point is that this is a mathematical proof and is not based on any observations of the real world. It needs only the axioms of Euclidean geometry as its starting point and the deductive logic of mathematics to reach its conclusion. This is key to understanding why people like Plato considered them important. In understanding all of this, it is important to understand what is meant by "deductive logic".

Obviously a lot more information can be found online or in an appropriate book.

-- Updated Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:36 am to add the following --

Here's another minor grammatical error by me: "I have asked and all I get in reply is the more of the same." should read "I have asked and all I get in reply is more of the same.".#

They're easily done.

-- Updated Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:15 am to add the following --

Another error on my part: Where I said 'This is the original of the terms "quintessential" and "quintessence"' I should have said: 'This is the origin of the terms "quintessential" and "quintessence"'.

[Belinda]

Rr6, if your boyhood did not include a lot of reading stories for pleasure the remedy, if you want your ideas to be understood , is to read a lot of well- written story books. To accustom yourself to reading you might begin with good quality fiction aimed at boys, perhaps boys' adventure stories. Then proceed to some of the easier classics. There are stories to suit all manner of special interests. The proper English usage becomes spontaneous when you have read a lot.

What I want to stress is that you won't learn concise and lucid English from instructions about grammar as easily and effectively as you will when your English usage is a spontaneous reflection of the styles of the good story tellers.

Steve's opinion is grounded in earning his living based upon what he knows about use of communications and especially the use of English in communications. It is absolutely okay to take advice from others; kings , presidents , and popes take advice from others.

[Steve3007]

Good advice Belinda. But I've just noticed that in post #144 Rr6 has placed a whole load of comments to me inside a set of quote/unquote tags. I completely missed them until now. I didn't see them before because, being inside a quotation, it looked like it was just a complete re-quote of my previous post, so I skimmed past it.

I'll read it and reply where possible.

-- Updated Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:02 pm to add the following --

Here are some responses to the comments that were made by Rr6 in post #144 and placed inside a quotation block. It's not always clear which of my comments from post #142 is being replied to in each of these comments. Where possible, I will re-quote the comments of mine to which I believe Rr6 is replying. (Note: For clarity, I think this is a good policy if possible. If you are replying to something that I have said, be clear exactly what it is that you are replying to. Quote it if that makes it clearer. But don't put your own new comments in quotes.)

Steve3007:

The first paragraph is reasonably lucid and grammatically correct, so long as the reader has at least heard of the concept of "dark energy" and the role it plays in modern theories of Cosmology.

Rr6:

If you cant understand then you will have to ask. This is well known info in physics since the the observation of accelerating expansion of Universe. Simple to grasp. imho

As I said, the first paragraph in the passage that I was considering in post #142 is reasonably lucid. Current theories of Cosmology, the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the proposed role of "dark energy" are independently verifiable from internet sources. We have no argument on this point.

Steve3007:

There has been no significant introduction to the concept of space-time, and what it means for something to be a property of space-time, but I think we're still relatively lucid here. We're saying that this space-time thing has two properties which we call gravity and dark energy. We can suspend our curiosity as to what this might mean in terms of things we can actually observe, on the assumption that it will be explained later. As we will see, that assumption proves to be unfounded.

Rr6:

Ok Steve, you corrected grammar and so have I. If you still do not understand then I can assist you. Also Steve, you also come across as if I have to post a 50 page thesis on each cosmological phenomena before I can state my cosmic hierarchy or whatever. Again, people can ask. Misty ask what dark energy is and have give rational, logical common sense answers.

Rr6:

So once again Steve, as Ive asked of you in other thread{s}, please share with us a rational, logical common sense statement that invalidates my comments as stated, You have not done that ever.

Remember, I am not saying that I either agree or disagree with your statements because I cannot do so. The reason I cannot do so is that many of them (but not all) are not coherent statements at all. In order to "invaliadate your statement" (i.e. dispute your factual assertions and/or reasoning) I first have to be clear what you are saying.

Rr6:

Somewhere in my post if not both replies to Misty I did what I know about space-time, that it has the property of gravity. You seem to infer someplace that I was suppose to define what space-time is to misty. She did not ask that. What I did do is try and show that, the space aspect of space-time is directly related to the property of gravity. That is my speculations.

If you want to offer a definition of what space-time, is then please do so as a true aid to all of us better understanding. Your inference or implications of my offering a 20 page thesis on what is space-time, or anything else that Misty did not specifically ask me about is not fair.

Space-time is a concept that we can all research on the internet. If you are using its standard definition then there is no need to define it. The problem is where you appear to be referring to concepts which we don't understand from everyday experience and which are not standard enough to look up.

Steve3007:

Here is where it starts to deteriorate. It's not clear whether the above is supposed to be a sentence in its own right, and the comma has been mistakenly placed there instead of a full-stop/period, or whether the quote below is part of the same sentence. In either case, the clause "we positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space" is difficult to make sense of. The word "we" is the first person plural, so one would expect it to be followed by a verb, but "positive" is not a verb.

Perhaps it is supposed to say something like: "we regard positive shaped geodesic gravity surface arcs as Space.". If so, it is still unexplained what this means in terms of observable reality.

It is also entirely unexplained, here or elsewhere, what is meant in this context by a "positive shape" and a "negative shape"....

(etc. See post #142 for full text and context.)

Rr6:

"Negative shaped, geodesic dark energy surface arcs, as Space also, yet there opposite each other and connected."

Here above I corrected at leas one error. Also Steve, I'm not a grammar specialist and nearly flunked many of my subjects in 10oth and two month into my 11th grade. If you still cannot understand above I can assist you. However, all of what I posted to Misty was just a quick, off top of my head, overview of my bottom-to-top hierarchial set of mechanisms for I what I believe will be re-labled as Space-Time-Space.

I appreciate that your grammar is not always perfect and it doesn't have to be. We all make occasional errors. But the above correction is still not a proposition or statement that can be assessed for truth or falsehood. I will turn it into a proposition by assuming that it is supposed to say something like this:

"Negative shaped, geodesic dark energy surface arcs, are also Space. Yet they're opposite each other and they are connected."

OK. I'm not expecting a 500 word thesis, but surely you must realize that your reader will not consider it completely obvious what you are referring to by the term: "Negative shaped, geodesic dark energy surface arcs". If you introduce a concept that does not refer to an everyday object (like "chair" or "boulder") and whose definition cannot easily be found by typing it into Google (like "space-time", or "dark energy") then you need to provide at least some explanation of what you mean by it. That is why I asked you in post #142, and have previously asked you in other posts, what you mean by such terms as "negative shaped". Are you using it in a mathematical sense? If so, could you explain in mathematical terminology what a "negative shape" is? Are you referring to a curve in which the rate of change of slope of the curve (i.e. the second derivative of the function which defines the curve) is positive? (If you don't know what I mean by "second derivative" it can be looked up.)

We can all look up the word "geodesic", so that's fine. But you need to explain what a "geodesic dark energy surface arc" is. At least briefly.

And so on.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

I'll leave it there for now.