The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005

****** It's Clobberin' Time! ******
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation. This wave function operation can be used to determine the probability that two particles can be found in the same quantum state. For bosons the equation is:
While the analogous one for fermions is:
Now we know that 1 and 2 are the subscripts for the wave functions acting on particular particles, while a and b are their quantum states. For the fermions, even the dumbest evolutionist can comprehend that the probability of two fermions being in the same state is zero, while for the bosons it is finite*. The property that makes this possible is spin. This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
When Jesus taught ethical imperatives in parables, the evolutionists of his day responded by demanding they, “Tell us plainly.” Likewise, today’s evolutionists reject nonmaterial realities by demanding “evidence” on materialistic terms. The nonmaterial character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Spin can be thought of as the number of rotations it takes to move something around and have it come back to its original place. Bosons have an even integer spin, so every time they turn around they are exactly the same, and are hence, indistinguishable. Since things that are truly indistinguishable are alike, it follows that all of them can be in the same state and it would be impossible to tell them apart. No doubt, there will be some objections to this idea. Two ordinary objects that look alike such as Jack Daniels bottles (I know evolutionist are very fond of this product, so I am trying to bring this into your world.) that look alike actually are distinguishable, but you must look very closely, for the bottles at the gay bar, the ACLU office, and the Dungeons and Dragons coven all have different fingerprints on them. Hence they still are distinguishable, and can not be molded into a single bottle, unlike bosons. I understand this concept because it is like the Trinity. Gd is three beings, yet all of them are indistinguishable, and can exist as a single state.
Fermions by contrast, have fractional spins and hence need to be turned around at least twice to come back to the way they were. Since most ordinary matter is fermions, we tend to be more familiar with their properties. These are the material particles that can do generate magnetic fields, something that bosons can not.
This is an illustration of how a spin1/2 particle behaves. It needs to go around twice before it is back to its old self.
This is the same sort of thing for a boson, every time it turns around it is always the same.
Now, what does this have to do with quintessence? Quintessence has a very special kind of spin. The spin of quintessence is 1+i. This enables it to turn around in hypercomplex space yet maintain certain fermionlike properties while in our own. Like a boson, quintessence particles can all exist in the same state, enabling it to have superfuildlike properties of a BoseEinstein condensate yet still create a magnetic field that holds in place all of the excess charge in the Empyrean that is the source of the back ground temperature.
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light. The speed of light c in our space is merely a function of the nearearth quintessence flux density, our near the sphere of the fixed stars the speed of light is much faster, and hence this explains what evolutionists keep referring to as “the redshift” It has nothing to do with some recessional velocity of stars proportional to their distance, but only to changes in c corresponding to changes in quintessence flux density.
This is how quintessence works relative to fermions and bosons. Every time it turns, it is always the same, but it turns in hypercomplex space, leaving its properties in our space varied.
* These equations can actually refer to the creation of particular particles. This in and of itself violates evolutionistic ontology. While perhaps getting the details wrong,this great man did have a powerful intuition of how subatomic physics refuted evolutionism
 Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
