Not a new theory for Quantum Theory

[OneSpace]

Hi everyone,

 

What if quantum theory is showing us how our world and beyond are, and instead of coming up with all these new theories to explain this strange new world we take another look at how the existance we experience can be questioned.

 

Are we really individuals? Do we occupy the same space? Are there even two things?

 

If within one space there is only one thing then everything that forms within that one space is that one thing.

 

An analogy:

Like Lego (The Blocks) the whole universe is one solid lump of many energised lego blocks appearing as empty space and through many combinations all matter and all forms. One thing is every other thing and even the space between things. Nothing is an individual, and everything occupies the same one space that is the whole universe.

 

I would like to know your thoughts.

Thankyou.

[Jon13]

sounds interesting.

[OneSpace]

Just remember I don't need to be able to prove E=mc2 myself to understand mass and energy are interchangable.

 

Quotes

******************************************************************

swansont (Knight who says, "Ni!")

Planck's constant would be the equivalent of the 100 rpm increment. Except the "spinning" isn't a physical object actually spinning. (QM is quite weird)

 

 

Except the "spinning" isn't a physical object actually spinning. (QM is quite weird)

 

swansont (Knight who says, "Ni!") 03-12-2008, 03:04 PM #2

Everything is actually waves, and the waves — which represent things like the position/momentum/energy of the entity in question — must conform to boundary conditions. This excludes a great many solutions from being possible; the solutions that are left are discrete.

 

Klaynos (Most Nagging Member) 03-12-2008, 05:06 PM #6

Well you see the idea of wave and particle breaks down in quantum mechanics.

 

When we said everything is a wave, we would also have been correct in saying everything is a particle, depending how you measure something it will appear to be either one...

 

Photons are waves, and they are particles, as are electrons...

 

Quantisation comes into play because the energies (and other values) of these particles/waves only have fixed quantised values...

 

Severian (Primate) 01-21-2008, 09:18 AM #8

 

In reality, QM is pretty simple if you stop thinking of things as particles and think of everything as a wave instead. Particles are really just very tightly focused wave-packets.

 

5614 (Genius) 03-13-2008, 11:00 AM #13

Originally Posted by DrP

It [double slit experi] is excellent for explaining how an electron travells as a wave and hits as a particle.

 

Yes, but they never behave as a wave and a particle at the same time.

it behaves as one or the other, but never both at the same instant.

 

If you say it is neither a wave, nor a particle, but is in fact a third 'thing', which somehow combines both wave and particle properties in one, then you'll be getting at the right thing.

 

Martin (Physics Expert)

 

But there are at least these two QG approaches that don't have any discreteness in any way shape or manner-----you can let the scale parameter or the UV cutoff go to zero, and they don't blow up. Or they seem not to blow up.

 

One is Martin Reuter and Roberto Percacci Asymptotic Safety approach

the other is Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn Triangulations approach.

 

Or maybe there is no discrete reality down below planck scale, in which case Loll Triangulations or Reuter Asymptotic Safety could actually lead to FUNDAMENTAL theories. It's nice to have that flexibility of being useful in either case however it turns out.

 

bascule (Scientist)

the jury on discreteness is still out. IMO we simply don't know what things look like smaller than planck. (or even remotely close to planck IMO). Very fascinating stuff.

 

What's your personal take on the whole thing?

______________

Tomorrow is the enemy if it steals one moment from today.

Join Date: Apr 2005 | Posts: 3,982 | Location: The center of the universe (from my frame of reference) |

 

 

******************************************************************

Sorry but it makes it harder for you to shoot down my theory if I quote you (and others) from the start.

 

Premises.

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.

 

#2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure.

e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles.

 

So.

There is only one entity that is real and 0 dimension, ala Time.

Using premise#2. To not put the horse before the cart the more complex (space and matter being the structure) 3 dimensions are made from 0 dimension time. The structure can cease to exist and even though time and space are one, time doesn't cease to exist it would just stop or be paused, but not destroyed like something 3 dimensional.

 

There is nothing that is discrete, Using premise #1. 3 dimensional space and 3 dimensional matter is made from 0 dimension time. Everything is truely still 0 dimension time.

It is time spinning up 3 dimensional space and matter, i.e. time is a 0 dimensional entity creating objects in 3 dimensions.

If the premises are right what else could it be.

 

What does it all mean then?

Not 3 dimensions are an illusion, but rather it is real but is a structure that is still truely 0 dimensions. Hence the wave particle daulity.

 

Things never behave as 0 dimension(wave) and 3 dimension(particle) at the same time.

[Daecon]

I can't help but feel that posting would be a lot easier to follow if you used quote tags to separate each person's quote...

[Klaynos]

Sorry but it makes it harder for you to shoot down my theory if I quote you (and others) from the start.

 

Premises.

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.

 

#2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure.

e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles.

 

So.

There is only one entity that is real and 0 dimension, ala Time.

 

I don't see how this follows, and anyway sandcastles are not just made of sand, but sand, water, shells, bits of rubbish etc... And if I got a rock from a castle and ground it up, I'd have sand made from castles

 

Using premise#2. To not put the horse before the cart the more complex (space and matter being the structure) 3 dimensions are made from 0 dimension time. The structure can cease to exist and even though time and space are one, time doesn't cease to exist it would just stop or be paused, but not destroyed like something 3 dimensional.

 

Time is not 0D, it's a dimension in it's own right. Time is not special, relativity shows us this. I again don't see where this comes from, could you cite some logical process to find this, and you know maybe some maths?

 

There is nothing that is discrete, Using premise #1. 3 dimensional space and 3 dimensional matter is made from 0 dimension time. Everything is truely still 0 dimension time.

It is time spinning up 3 dimensional space and matter, i.e. time is a 0 dimensional entity creating objects in 3 dimensions.

If the premises are right what else could it be.

 

Evidence + maths please!

 

What does it all mean then?

Not 3 dimensions are an illusion, but rather it is real but is a structure that is still truely 0 dimensions. Hence the wave particle daulity.

 

How? What feature of this proposal allows for duality?

 

Things never behave as 0 dimension(wave) and 3 dimension(particle) at the same time.

 

Are waves 0D? I know I can make an electron 0D, or 1D, or 2D, and that it's normally 3D, and that's a wave.... if it wasn't a wave I wouldn't be able to confine it...

[OneSpace]

I was not comfortable calling it 0D, on thinking about it i came up with this.

 

0D- 0D is TIME STOPPED or paused

1D- 1D is TIME, it is 1D because it can move foward, point A to point B is a single dimension.

2D- Angular momentum, time that could just move foward now has a left right component. 2D is SPACE, some say space is empty or that it is nothingness, but it is just that space has no thickness, when you look at space you only see its height and width, its depth is invisible because it is not there.

3D- 3D is MATTER, the angular (left/right) momentum (foward/back) takes on the third and final dimension. Time (z) is spun into a flat orbit (y) in two dimensions and if you can imagine that orbit on each revolution moving around the (x) axis a specific amount every orbit. That specific amout quantizing the matter.

 

Klaynos

Gidday mate.

The sand castles are an analogy, i don't think the water and shell stuff has anything to do with it.

 

Duality, i think this is quite clear, here you have time which is a singularity building the things (3D) that are a duality. Premis#1, we don't stop being that from which we are made so a 3D particle is still 1D time, a duality.

 

Gidday Trans

I am so new here, i will try and learn how to use the quote tags.

 

One last thing is that i don't need to give you evidence and math, this has already been done by you and by science, this is just thinking differently about the knowledge already gained.

[Klaynos]

I was just carrying on the sandcastle analogy, I think it worked quite nicely to show that stuff isn't just made of one thing

 

One last thing is that i don't need to give you evidence and math, this has already been done by you and by science, this is just thinking differently about the knowledge already gained.

 

Ah well it's not science then... We've discussed this before...

[OneSpace]

Look son, i am a 43 yr old firefighter, so think of me as a consultant here to give you a practicle point of view, that is all. Science goes to a lot of trouble to prove and test and double blind test, then put their theories out there for others to do the same, so when they say something like E=MC2 i tend to beleive them. And even with my year 12 physics i can understand that it means energy and matter are interchangable, so stop ("i was just") treating me like and idiot.

 

 

I am not here to tell you your job or anything about physics that has not already been proved but if you actually read what i wrote you would see the content is so practicle that even a child could understand it.

 

Come on, for once pull your head in and think, "what else could it be?"

Simplicity is eloquence.

 

"the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it."

 

Klaynos

I was just carrying on the sandcastle analogy, I think it worked quite nicely to show that stuff isn't just made of one thing

 

That is the opposite of what it is showing.

[Daecon]

<Spelling nazi>

 

Is that a typo of "particle" or "practical"?

 

</spelling nazi>

[OneSpace]

opps, practical.

[mooeypoo]

Look son, i am a 43 yr old firefighter, so think of me as a consultant here to give you a practicle point of view, that is all. Science goes to a lot of trouble to prove and test and double blind test, then put their theories out there for others to do the same, so when they say something like E=MC2 i tend to beleive them. And even with my year 12 physics i can understand that it means energy and matter are interchangable, so stop ("i was just") treating me like and idiot.

 

 

I am not here to tell you your job or anything about physics that has not already been proved but if you actually read what i wrote you would see the content is so practicle that even a child could understand it.

 

Come on, for once pull your head in and think, "what else could it be?"

Simplicity is eloquence.

 

"the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it."

 

Klaynos

I was just carrying on the sandcastle analogy, I think it worked quite nicely to show that stuff isn't just made of one thing

 

That is the opposite of what it is showing.

I don't mean to offend, my friend, but you can be the king of the world - but with no evidence, logic or the scientific methods, your theory is not even a theory, it's an unproven rant.

 

Remember that you are in a science forums. We don't have any rules about the people we accept, but we do have rules about the theories we accept.

 

It's called the Scientific Method.

 

 

p.s (EDIT):

Another point is that we don't intend to "shoot down your theory", but part of the scientific method is to poke holes in a theory to see how stable it stands in relation to *REALITY*. It's like playing "Devil's advocate" - if the theory passes criticism, it may be valid. If it fails, it's obviously invalid. Don't take this so personally, we wouldn't have been good Science-minded people if we wouldn't have done that.

[OneSpace]

If you were trying to be my friend then this would not be the twelfth post without discussing anything i have said.

How about a little help then, i don't think i know that much at all.

 

No offence but we have had many of the scientific types through the fire service, they also think>

"but with no evidence, logic or the scientific methods, your theory is not even a theory, it's an unproven rant."

,and all you're doing is trying to show them how to use a beater!

 

Remove your foot from your mouth, you actually have to bring up something i have said to poke holes in it(i want you to take shots to see if it stands). It's not an insult, pull your head in, discuss something i have said, i came here looking for the experts, not to prove i am one.

 

p.s. edit:

"the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it"

 

It is not about finding science, the knowledge has already been gained, it is thinking differently about it.

[Klaynos]

Science is not involved with putting pretty words onto the ideas it finds, either it is shown in the maths or it is not.

 

Experience has shown that trying to shoot at an idea with no maths is like trying to shoot a cloud it just changes shape fluidly...

 

Science is trial by fire. It's harsh, but that's the way it is, I apologise if we seem confrontational, but we've been in a very similar place before...

 

There are several other interpreting science in a new way threads about here, I can't remember any of their names maybe someone else can? But reading the comments there might be a worthwhile start to stop us repeating ourselves.

[OneSpace]

Could you help, please?

Premise 1 and 2.

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.

 

#2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure.

e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles.

 

True of false, it would be appreciated. If false, how,why?

For logic not science.

[Klaynos]

Well the first one is circular.

 

But my problem is more how you jump from those two assumptions to your statements.

[OneSpace]

#1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. "Sand castles are always just sand."

 

 

Circular? How, why?

True, false?

Could you give an example?

Maybe you could be a bit more specific, which statements?

 

 

 

By the way i used the quote tabs but nothing happened

 

Well the first one is circular

 

I don't think i can get it to work. Smileys don't work either.

 

edit: spelling >regardless

[ajb]

What I will say is unless you ask a scientific question (i.e. one posed correctly using known science) then it is difficult if not impossible to give a scientific answer.

 

I think that is why no-one has tried in any earnest to address you points.

 

I for one am not clear on what your original post of about.

[OneSpace]

No-one can answer true or false and say why to?

 

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. Sand castles are always just sand.

 

#2.Don't put the cart before the horse, the structure is made from the base particle but the base particle is not made from the structure.

e.g. Castles are made from sand, sand is not made from castles.

i.e. It is not circular.

 

you are kidding right?

 

"the knowledge gained is not as important as the ability to think differently about it"

Your right these are not scientific questions, it is only trying to think differently about the knowledge already gained.

 

Is anybody here not sitting on a high horse?

 

ajb.

"I for one am not clear on what your original post of about."

 

Quantum is showing us a very different world to our own, maybe we should look differently at our own. In all sincerity is that clear enough?

[mooeypoo]

#1. What something is made from, regardless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

e.g. "Sand castles are always just sand."

 

 

Circular? How, why?

True, false?

Could you give an example?

Maybe you could be a bit more specific, which statements?

It's tautological, it makes no new statement of "knowledge", it just repeats itself.

 

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless, because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic.

 

"The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions.

 

And about your second sentence, it is simply very very simplified. Too simplified to reach a cocnlusion from. A sand castle is not just sand. It is has water, for example (damp sand, otherwise it won't "hold"). What else? The sand is not just "sand" it is particles of something. What something? There are many kinds of sand (look here, for example: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMED51D..03N)

 

So you see, these statements are okay, but they're not proper to *base* your conclusion upon. They're just too simplified and circular.

 

 

And about my previous post -- I didn't mean to offend you, I meant to respond on your allegation that we repeatedly "assault" your theory. That *IS* science. You play devil's advocate, you question the heck out of a theory, and if it STANDS that process, it might have merit.

 

You do that to *find* the holes, so that you can perfect the theory and/or devise others that are more substantial.

 

You shouldn't take it personally, but requiring we stop is like requiring we stop thinking scientifically. That won't happen.

 

~moo

[OneSpace]

I didn't ask you to stop, i have only asked for your help and encoraged you to find holes.

*The "you are a crackpot i will give you no serious consideration" attitude is the only thing i find offensive.

 

Like not considering that sand castles are an analogy, it is not literal, even if i say pure silica formed by heat into different forms. It is not like i did not actually spell it out for you first.

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

 

Like continuing the assumption i am somehow trying to unprove science. It is about thinking differently, if by doing this i were to step outside of science i would expect you would respectfully let me know. Again, please shoot at anything that is false science, this is the purpose here.

 

i swear the quote tag does not work on my com.

Quote#1

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless,

 

Try that arguement with a three dimensional thing, matter, and i think you will find it falls down. And still- Blue is the structure, the primary colours make it.

 

Quote #2

because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic.

 

I would agree if it is flawed.

 

Quote #3

"The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions.

 

This is an unsubstantiated rant *. No offence intended.

 

Quote#4

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue".

 

Lets see if your right.

The pemise is, What something (blue) is made from (red and green{?}i think ), regaurdless of the complexity of the structure (two primary colours blended), is still what it truely is (red and green).

 

If you think this is flawed i think we should agree to disagee.

You seem to think logic needs to be complex or is it that you think i am an idiot and must therefore be wrong.

 

Have you ever had an original idea, (No offence intended) but you start by taking it back to basics and then see if it still holds as things get more complex.

 

I seriously doubt within the life of this thread you can stop treating me like a crackpot and really give, it would now seem me not the idea, any serious consideration. I may be wrong.

[ajb]

Quantum is showing us a very different world to our own, maybe we should look differently at our own. In all sincerity is that clear enough?

 

Very different, yet agrees with every experiment/observation ever carried out. Maybe not so different then?

 

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

 

I am not sure what you mean by this. The "complexity" i.e the arrangement of the atoms/molecules in a substance does have a dramatic effect on the properties (electrical, mechanical, optical etc. ) of that substance. A good example of this is carbon.

[insane_alien]

A good example of this is carbon.

 

especially the allotropes graphite and diamond. very different properties, most caused by the structure. and if you have atomized carbon, it behaves very differently from either. this indicates that the properties of the two above are structure based.

[ajb]

Exactly what I was thinking of insane. I am sure you can elaborate much more than I can on the subject if required.

[Klaynos]

I didn't ask you to stop, i have only asked for your help and encoraged you to find holes.

*The "you are a crackpot i will give you no serious consideration" attitude is the only thing i find offensive.

 

Like not considering that sand castles are an analogy, it is not literal, even if i say pure silica formed by heat into different forms. It is not like i did not actually spell it out for you first.

 

I think our point is your analogy can be continued and it still works quite well when you start asking what type of sand etc....

 

I think our point is your analogy can be continued and it still works quite well when you start asking what type of sand etc....

 

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

 

If you define something, then you've just sat the definition so this will always be true..

 

Like continuing the assumption i am somehow trying to unprove science. It is about thinking differently, if by doing this i were to step outside of science i would expect you would respectfully let me know. Again, please shoot at anything that is false science, this is the purpose here.

 

You're not really doing science here, science (or at least modern physics) is about mathematical predicting, and experimenting.

 

i swear the quote tag does not work on my com.

 

 

There's a bit quote button on the bottom of my post. or [ quote ] [ /quote ] without the spaces.

Quote#1

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless,

 

Try that arguement with a three dimensional thing, matter, and i think you will find it falls down. And still- Blue is the structure, the primary colours make it.

 

Photons are 4D, a blue photon is still a blue photon.

 

Quote #2

because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic.

 

I would agree if it is flawed.

 

Quote #3

"The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions.

 

This is an unsubstantiated rant *. No offence intended.

 

It's as substantiated as sandcastles are made of sand, I can go look at the blue sky and sea and see clouds reflected in the sea, and in the evening see red in the clouds above reflected off of the sea.

 

Quote#4

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue".

 

Lets see if your right.

The pemise is, What something (blue) is made from (red and green{?}i think ), regaurdless of the complexity of the structure (two primary colours blended), is still what it truely is (red and green).

 

You can get things that reflect purely blue, or you can make some appear blue with many different wavelength combinations of reflected light, but that's just a trick played by our brains/eyes.

 

If you think this is flawed i think we should agree to disagee.

You seem to think logic needs to be complex or is it that you think i am an idiot and must therefore be wrong.

 

Have you ever had an original idea, (No offence intended) but you start by taking it back to basics and then see if it still holds as things get more complex.

 

I seriously doubt within the life of this thread you can stop treating me like a crackpot and really give, it would now seem me not the idea, any serious consideration. I may be wrong.

 

We're not really treating you like a crackpot, this is how science is done, trial by fire.

[mooeypoo]

I didn't ask you to stop, i have only asked for your help and encoraged you to find holes.

*The "you are a crackpot i will give you no serious consideration" attitude is the only thing i find offensive.

Well, I didn't say that, and I *DID* point out errors, you just ignore them, in a continous attempt to try and accuse us of not trying. We did make some good points about your claims (from what was possible to understand), so stop with the "You're a bunch of science snob" rants and start PARTICIPATING in the conversation YOU started.

 

Like not considering that sand castles are an analogy, it is not literal, even if i say pure silica formed by heat into different forms. It is not like i did not actually spell it out for you first.

Okay you have to stop being analogous and start being PRACTICAL and straight forward. No one understands what you mean in your theories, and when we point out irrationalities and illogical claims you jump back into "it was an analogy".

 

You're either here to have us work on your theory together, or you're here to show yourself that scientists are snobs, and you'll do everything you can to prove it.

 

We're participating in the debate, and we;'re reading your text. We don't just "waste our time" like that to be snobs. Most of us, at least. We try to analyze your claims to get an understanding of your theory and to help you improve it, but we can't if you don't follow simple rules of logic.

 

Don't make analogies, okay? It's confusing. Before the analogies, speak STRAIGHT FORWARD. What, exactly, is it that you are claiming?

 

There's a huge difference between a *Scientific* Theory and a *Philosophical* theory.

 

 

 

#1. What something is made from, regaurdless of the complexity of the structure, is still what it truely is.

 

Like continuing the assumption i am somehow trying to unprove science. It is about thinking differently, if by doing this i were to step outside of science i would expect you would respectfully let me know. Again, please shoot at anything that is false science, this is the purpose here.

Someone "trying to unprove science" is someone whod oesn't know what science IS.

Science is a *METHODOLOGY*, it's not a claim, you don't "disprove" science, you either follow the methodology or you don't.

 

Having an imaginative idea is not against science. A lot of discoveries came from an imaginative "breakthroughs". HOWEVER -- There's no such thing as "stepping out of science". If you step out of science, you stop analyzing the world around you. Science is the *METHOD* by which to analyze the world; it's the method to state how to make the analysis as accurate as possible.

 

Stepping "out of science" is like saying you are solving an Math Integral by "stepping out of math".. it's no longer relevant.

 

i swear the quote tag does not work on my com.

Instead of using quote tag, just click the "QUOTE" button under the specific post you are answering to ("reply"). It will quote the entire post and at least we would know who you are referring to.

 

Quote#1

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue". It's circular, it is scientifically (and logically) meaningless,

 

Try that arguement with a three dimensional thing, matter, and i think you will find it falls down. And still- Blue is the structure, the primary colours make it.

Go read about logic and logical fallacies, before we continune this. It's pointless otherwise, and I'm getting a bit tired of you trying to make a mishmash of subjects. I was talking about the *LOGIC* (or lack thereof) of your premise. It's ILLOGICAL because it's CIRCULAR and I gave an example.. what does it have to do with 3-D, 5-D or structures?

 

Before you develop a claim you need to make sure it follows the rules of logic and that you can base a premise on top of it.

 

Read logical fallacies, i think that'll explain a lot more than any of us can in one post.

 

Quote #2

because reaching any sort of conclusion based on that premise is risking (to say the least) flawed logic.

 

I would agree if it is flawed.

Where's an answer to my question? Where is a relation to what *I* took the time to answer you? You keep claiming that we are the ones who are snobs, but look at how you're answering us: "I would agree if it is flawed" ? WHAT? Agree what? What is flawed? if you disagree that your premise is flawed, how about EXPLAINING WHY.

 

Get off your high horse already. You're the one who came to a *SCIENCE* forums, don't complain now that we insist you use LOGIC, RATIONALITY and SCIENCE.

 

Quote #3

"The skies are blue because they reflect the ocean. The ocean is blue because it relfect the skies." That, too, is circular, tautological, and makes no difference in the sense of reaching conclusions.

 

This is an unsubstantiated rant *. No offence intended.

you accuse us of not noticing an analogy, and you yourself are ignoring my *CLAIM*. I didn't claim the skies are actually blue BECAUSE of reflecting the ocean, I claimed that this "unsubstantiated rant" as you so skillfully put it, is the EXACT SAME CONCEPT and logic as YOURS.

 

No answer on that too? You agree? Disagree? Why disagree?

 

Quote#4

It's the same of me saying "What is blue, regardless of the colors that make it so, is still blue".

 

Lets see if your right.

The pemise is, What something (blue) is made from (red and green{?}i think ), regaurdless of the complexity of the structure (two primary colors blended), is still what it truely is (red and green).

 

If you think this is flawed i think we should agree to disagree.

You seem to think logic needs to be complex or is it that you think i am an idiot and must therefore be wrong.

Dear mister Firefighter. I have the utmost respect for your profession, and I have nothing against you.

 

 

I will not debate logic with you until you show at least a small consideration of what a logical debate is.

It tried to show it, but you ignored it... if you don't understand what I tried to say, say you don't understand. I'll explain myself again. but this is getting quite ridiculous.

 

I am reminding you that you are in a SCIENCE FORUMS. And that we demand rational and logical premises.

 

<sigh>

 

Have you ever had an original idea, (No offense intended) but you start by taking it back to basics and then see if it still holds as things get more complex.

 

I seriously doubt within the life of this thread you can stop treating me like a crackpot and really give, it would now seem me not the idea, any serious consideration. I may be wrong.

 

 

Stop yelling around that everyon think you're a crackpot and start ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.

 

 

Don't convince us of something we didn't think of in the first place, hm? (hence, convince us there's merit in your claims instead of convincing us you're a crackpot. How's that?)

 

~moo