cogzoid
Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005
|
Paley,
I understand that you are spreading yourself a little thin. I'm going to regroup some of my questions regarding your ToE so you don't have to ferry through pages of this thread to try to find questions to answer. These are remotely in chronological order. And I'm only asking the ones that you should be able to answer quickly.
| Quote | | However, the sphere of the fixed stars can be assumed to have zero thickness in three dimensions, for it is actually part of a seven-dimensional ensemble that slices through our own space, while at the same time enveloping it, so my assumptions are absolutely solid. |
Why seven? Did you just pick that out of your hat?
You have claimed multiple times that your ether/quintessence is a crystal. What is the structure of this crystal? If you are going to claim that since it is constantly changing (and hence can't be pigeon-holed) then it is no longer a crystal. It's more like glass, which, while hard, does not have a crystalline structure.
| Quote | | The ether that fills empty space is the most perfect crystalline solid you could exist. Only the existentialist evolutionistic presupposition of "nothingness¨ allows you to believe in a "vacuum.¨ |
| Quote | | Given this velocity, it would take 9.6532X1045 years for light to travel through one millimeter of quintessence space. This implies an infinitesimally thin spherical shell, justifying my simplifying assumptions in the Gaussian model. |
So, first the ether takes up all of space and vacuum doesn't exist. Now, the ether is just an infinitesimally thin spherical shell. I guess that's not a contradiction for you, eh Paley?
And more recent questions:
| Quote | | This ignores the special properties of quintessence: In seven-dimensional space, all three-dimensional electromagnetic radiation has the same frequency, and hence, will be slowed down uniformly by the condensate. |
Where does this come from? I realize that you're making it up as you go along, but perhaps you can make up a more in depth description of the maths that support this.
| Quote | | This frequency will yield a value for n equivalent to the number of elementary charges in the Empyrean(2) |
Why on a flat earth would the index of refraction follow the total amount of elementary charges in a structure? I guess you don't feel you need to show any work to back this up either.
When you get time away from your Guts to Gametes diatribe, perhaps you can answer these questions. To be honest it looks like you've realized that you're painting yourself into a corner, and rather than finishing the work, you're setting down the brush. I'm a tad dissappointed, but not surprised in the least. You'd rather argue with people that don't require as much proof or on topics that are unprovable.
-Dan
|
