On Apr 14, 12:44*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

wrong: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

"Autymn D. C." wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Of course not.. Its only a way of visualizing. For the Quantum Point to be
a
point it must ocupy some space , and energy in the absence of matter
occupies
no space.

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I
were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other
matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

wrong: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

That link does not show me wrong. and neither does any Point
you have made.. Now I would love some one to show me wrong.
Show me how any unified energy form without relative consideration
of matter has other than infinite energy density. All Physics Only
models Matter in relative motion to other matter. All field concepts and
models in physics is relative to some matter or the other. You cannot
model energy in the absence of matter. Its why every model fail when we
go back to the instant before the BB. The only rules that apply are
probability
and uncertenty.. If you can show me a modle, that fits existing physical
rules,
of the energy in the absence of matter I would be very impressed indeed.

"Paul Mays"

. Einstein's pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be
converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter...

In yor opinion "=" means "made of"?
S*

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"

Our knowledge of waves is enough to show dispersion is a problem they
cannot handle.

Sometimes are discusions if radio waves are transversal or longitudinal.
Such are in the math only. In nature each wave has the two components. Our
knowledge of waves is not enough to describe the light.
S*

On Apr 14, 10:07*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"Autymn D. C." wrote in ...
On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Of course not.. Its only a way of visualizing. *For the Quantum Point to be
a
point it must ocupy some space , and energy in the absence of matter
occupies
no space.

No, you dub stuff a point.

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I
were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other
matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

wrong:http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

That link does not show me wrong. *and neither does any Point
you have made.. *Now I would love some one to show me wrong.
Show me how any unified energy form without relative consideration
of matter has other than infinite energy density. *All Physics Only

That link does, blind cretin.

models Matter in relative motion to other matter. All field concepts and
models in physics is relative to some matter or the other. You cannot
model energy in the absence of matter. Its why every model fail when we

There was no lack of matter in yours.

go back to the instant before the BB. *The only rules that apply are

but not behind?

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...

"Paul Mays"

. Einstein's pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be
converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter...

In yor opinion "=" means "made of"?
S*

No... "=" means Equal To, "Made Of" means
Every Thing, Observed and Un-observed that is the
total substance of a "Thing"

Quite Different ...

In the context of what you snipped, if you subscribe to
BB Theory, You cannot have Matter with out energy
but you can have Energy without Matter. But that Unified
Energy that matter is converted from cannot be modeled or
physically defined because physical laws only apply to matter in
motion relative to other matter in motion. You cannot show
me a model of fields, waves, propagation ect that in the model
relative reference is not made to some matter, even if the matter
be the observer.

Dear Szczepan Bia³ek:

On Apr 14, 10:36*am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)"
...
Our knowledge of waves is enough to show dispersion
is a problem they cannot handle.

Sometimes are discusions if radio waves are transversal
or longitudinal. Such are in the math only. In nature
each wave has the two components. Our knowledge of
waves is not enough to describe the light.

So you keep saying. However, we have a lot of experience with light,
and we can establish experimental results that disprove light as a
wave. Similarly, we can establish experimental results that disprove
light as a particle.

So further dissembling on how waves solve everything (in your
opinion), does not further Science.

David A. Smith

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
Dear Szczepan Bia³ek:

On Apr 14, 10:36 am, "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)"
....
Our knowledge of waves is enough to show dispersion
is a problem they cannot handle.

Sometimes are discusions if radio waves are transversal
or longitudinal. Such are in the math only. In nature
each wave has the two components. Our knowledge of
waves is not enough to describe the light.

| So you keep saying. However, we have a lot of experience with light,
| and we can establish experimental results that disprove light as a
| wave.

Yeah, like we can establish experimental results that disprove apples
grow on trees. Don't be ignorant all your life, crank, have a day off.

On Apr 10, 12:29 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

It [Standard Model] tends to falsify Relativity, doesn't it? Relativity has as a basic
principle, no absolute reference frame, but Standard Model depends on an
absolute reference frame. Background dependence vs. background
independence. Take your pick, both are true depending on which model you
pick.

Yousuf Khan

Relativity has not been falsified. Show me mathematically how an absolute
reference frame has anything to do with the standard model.

The whole QM field is background-dependent. Most of the 10 or 11
dimensional Superstring theories are also background-dependent. If
Superstrings are supposed to be the uniter of the QM and Relativity
fields, then that will mean that Relativity will become the subset of
a background-dependent theory. Once Relativity is background-
dependent, then it's no longer "relative", it then becomes
Absolutivity. :-)

If we're living on a 4 dimensional brane, as Superstring pre-supposes,
then we can't possibly be in a background-independent universe. Just a
universe so large that we can't find its absolute coordinates at our
scale.

Yousuf Khan

On 14 ÁÐÒ, 21:52, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Apr 12, 8:31 pm, vps137 wrote:

I would agree with your estimation of the eather. The traditional
eather really doesn't need neither in classical physics, no in quantum

doesn't need neither = does[o,t] need either

Thanks, I know my English is not good, but I hope you caught the sense.