nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat, that is what I have been telling you that the resolution for
the physics paradoxes is well within physics provided singularity
within mathematics is recognised with all its charecteristics,
unmodified or without manipulative explaining away as it is done in
the present day physics.

nightbat

I know what you have been telling me and it is what has been
resultantly further explained to you Shastry, what's not being absorbed
by you. You personal concept of singularity human attribute of total
consciousness for classical point singularity in physics is not
applicable and are not one and the same. As explained, any physics
paradoxes are particular to subject discipline not to non pertinent
cross subject mixing or personal human attribute. Your demand that
previous classical singularity paradox remain unresolved to lend support
to your non applicable subject mixing is continued error itself.


Shastry
In other words, your mixed up explaining away of singularity within
your "real" universe is in error. The universe is basically the
singularity itself. For, the invisible singularity appears to be the
universe.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Your rejection of real universe existent versus your mixed up
illusory premise of it, is null. Referenced applied physics singularity
resolution as said existent consisting of energy or matter cannot be
explained away when based on mathematical proof. The universe including
physics singularity are composed and consist of energy and matter but
are not one and the same dimensionally. The universe as explained is
energy time and frame dependent not subject or confining to human
attribute. The total universe is not human intuitive and had you been
able to answer the two questions I had provided in previous post, you
may have finally gained insight to said resolution provided. A point
singularity, whether infinitely invisible or not, has value as
distinguished from non quantified one. As soon as you assign a point
factor it as value apart from its optic possible infinity dimensional
one. And an mathematical abstract paradox invisible zero singularity may
appear to be the universe to you Shastry, but not to the real world
micro macro existent universe itself.

What ever you do Shastry, don't tell your taking objection to quantum
and relativist's that the based Universe existent and dual theory
premise is not real or non existent, they will hang you out to dry.

Do yourself a favor Shastry, and figure out how many infinity miles you
are to yourself, and then understand what you are made of, and see if
the factors match.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat, that is what I have been telling you that the resolution for
the physics paradoxes is well within physics provided singularity
within mathematics is recognised with all its charecteristics,
unmodified or without manipulative explaining away as it is done in
the present day physics.

nightbat

I know what you have been telling me and it is what has been
resultantly further explained to you Shastry, what's not being absorbed
by you. You personal concept of singularity human attribute of total
consciousness for classical point singularity in physics is not
applicable and are not one and the same. As explained, any physics
paradoxes are particular to subject discipline not to non pertinent
cross subject mixing or personal human attribute. Your demand that
previous classical singularity paradox remain unresolved to lend support
to your non applicable subject mixing is continued error itself.


Shastry
In other words, your mixed up explaining away of singularity within
your "real" universe is in error. The universe is basically the
singularity itself. For, the invisible singularity appears to be the
universe.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Your rejection of real universe existent versus your mixed up
illusory premise of it, is null. Referenced applied physics singularity
resolution as said existent consisting of energy or matter cannot be
explained away when based on mathematical proof. The universe including
physics singularity are composed and consist of energy and matter but
are not one and the same dimensionally. The universe as explained is
energy time and frame dependent not subject or confining to human
attribute. The total universe is not human intuitive and had you been
able to answer the two questions I had provided in previous post, you
may have finally gained insight to said resolution provided. A point
singularity, whether infinitely invisible or not, has value as
distinguished from non quantified one. As soon as you assign a point
factor it as value apart from its optic possible infinity dimensional
one. And an mathematical abstract paradox invisible zero singularity may
appear to be the universe to you Shastry, but not to the real world
micro macro existent universe itself.

What ever you do Shastry, don't tell your taking objection to quantum
and relativist's that the based Universe existent and dual theory
premise is not real or non existent, they will hang you out to dry.

Do yourself a favor Shastry, and figure out how many infinity miles you
are to yourself, and then understand what you are made of, and see if
the factors match.


the nightbat


Why is the question for all of your emphatic assertions, nightbat,
your explaining away of singularity within the universe as in the
present day physics, is improper. For, singularity itself appears as
the "observers' universe" which forms the much sought after natural
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum theory and "observer
related" relativity theories. Now, quantum and relativity theorists
may indeed be more than happy to know the basis of these theories.
Also, incompatibility of relativity with quantum theory follow
naturally for their surprise.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:


Why is the question for all of your emphatic assertions, nightbat,
your explaining away of singularity within the universe as in the
present day physics, is improper. For, singularity itself appears as
the "observers' universe" which forms the much sought after natural
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum theory and "observer
related" relativity theories. Now, quantum and relativity theorists
may indeed be more than happy to know the basis of these theories.
Also, incompatibility of relativity with quantum theory follow
naturally for their surprise.

S S Shastry

nightbat

The question is not improper, your mixed up subject allegations
and human attributing is. And nothing can ultimately explain away truth
once fundamentally grasped. The classical singularity infinity zero
premise is not null to energy/mass volume content but applicable to
optic frame alone. And its resolution paves the way for universal
dynamics understanding. The physics singularity resolution also does
provide for road to GUT formulation and unified gravity understanding
but not to permission for non pertinent cross subject human
attribute(s). The unified basis is parameter energy and fundamental
understanding of the base sub micro quantum Planck field and atomic
lattice. Shastry, like a child who knows they have found a key but can
only guess for what its use is for, human mixed subject attributing is
not the answer, logic and mathematical proof is. Incompatibility of
theories do not necessarily follow from non fundamental basis but from
difference in time and frame perspective and deduced invisible quantum
sub micro diversified states.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:


Why is the question for all of your emphatic assertions, nightbat,
your explaining away of singularity within the universe as in the
present day physics, is improper. For, singularity itself appears as
the "observers' universe" which forms the much sought after natural
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum theory and "observer
related" relativity theories. Now, quantum and relativity theorists
may indeed be more than happy to know the basis of these theories.
Also, incompatibility of relativity with quantum theory follow
naturally for their surprise.

S S Shastry

nightbat

The question is not improper, your mixed up subject allegations
and human attributing is. And nothing can ultimately explain away truth
once fundamentally grasped. The classical singularity infinity zero
premise is not null to energy/mass volume content but applicable to
optic frame alone. And its resolution paves the way for universal
dynamics understanding. The physics singularity resolution also does
provide for road to GUT formulation and unified gravity understanding
but not to permission for non pertinent cross subject human
attribute(s). The unified basis is parameter energy and fundamental
understanding of the base sub micro quantum Planck field and atomic
lattice. Shastry, like a child who knows they have found a key but can
only guess for what its use is for, human mixed subject attributing is
not the answer, logic and mathematical proof is. Incompatibility of
theories do not necessarily follow from non fundamental basis but from
difference in time and frame perspective and deduced invisible quantum
sub micro diversified states.


the nightbat


Again, nightbat, your mixed up explaining away of singularity within
your "real" universe is just that. For, it is the singularity which is
the basis for all explanations and not the other way round.

For example, the singularity based "observers' universe" forms the
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum and "observer related"
relativity theories which are incompatible being distinct perspectives
of the same universe. Obviously, they cannot be unified being distinct
perspectives of the same universe. Moreover, a minimum diversity is
essential for the universe to be visible. Conseqently, your GUT is not
expected and so may not be possible.

However, your tendency as in the present day physics, to unify is due
to the existence of unity already existing in the form of singularity.
And so, singularity behind the universe is already the unity.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Again, nightbat, your mixed up explaining away of singularity within
your "real" universe is just that. For, it is the singularity which is
the basis for all explanations and not the other way round.

nightbat

Still grasping at straws to affirm your improper mixing of human
attribute for what you can't understand or want to rigidly fit your
preconceived or embedded notions. You are so hung up on singularity,
it's sad, get over it.


Shastry
For example, the singularity based "observers' universe" forms the
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum and "observer related"
relativity theories which are incompatible being distinct perspectives
of the same universe. Obviously, they cannot be unified being distinct
perspectives of the same universe. Moreover, a minimum diversity is
essential for the universe to be visible. Conseqently, your GUT is not
expected and so may not be possible.

nightbat

The universe is not a singularity based "observers' universe"
but a multi micro macro volume based one. There is no basis or
foundation for unity of quantum and relativity theories presently
without fundamental understanding of unifying energy. As advised, they
are distinct perspectives of the same existent energy, of which the
universe is composed. Higher micro sub quantum energy states are
required to optically presently visualize and measure their respective,
individual, group, multi energy and mass make-up or effects.

Shastry
However, your tendency as in the present day physics, to unify is due
to the existence of unity already existing in the form of singularity.
And so, singularity behind the universe is already the unity.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Singularity in physics is a paradox of null real world premise.
The GUT solution as advised is not in the physics singularity resolution
but in the unifying and fundamental understanding of energy and base
field. The presentation of singularity of physics only proves it can
mislead many folks who take it too seriously. Tendency to unification in
physics is limited to hopeful full understanding of universal dynamics.
Singularity in physics was a mathematical curiosity nothing more, and
which was in need of logical clarification. The solution to the unity of
the four forces or effects is not in singularity understanding but in
energy's fundamental grasp. There can be no present unity because the
fields are in present perpetual non uniform motion only final unified
theoretical understanding of same.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Again, nightbat, your mixed up explaining away of singularity within
your "real" universe is just that. For, it is the singularity which is
the basis for all explanations and not the other way round.

nightbat

Still grasping at straws to affirm your improper mixing of human
attribute for what you can't understand or want to rigidly fit your
preconceived or embedded notions. You are so hung up on singularity,
it's sad, get over it.


Shastry
For example, the singularity based "observers' universe" forms the
foundation for the "observer entangled" quantum and "observer related"
relativity theories which are incompatible being distinct perspectives
of the same universe. Obviously, they cannot be unified being distinct
perspectives of the same universe. Moreover, a minimum diversity is
essential for the universe to be visible. Conseqently, your GUT is not
expected and so may not be possible.

nightbat

The universe is not a singularity based "observers' universe"
but a multi micro macro volume based one. There is no basis or
foundation for unity of quantum and relativity theories presently
without fundamental understanding of unifying energy. As advised, they
are distinct perspectives of the same existent energy, of which the
universe is composed. Higher micro sub quantum energy states are
required to optically presently visualize and measure their respective,
individual, group, multi energy and mass make-up or effects.

Shastry
However, your tendency as in the present day physics, to unify is due
to the existence of unity already existing in the form of singularity.
And so, singularity behind the universe is already the unity.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Singularity in physics is a paradox of null real world premise.
The GUT solution as advised is not in the physics singularity resolution
but in the unifying and fundamental understanding of energy and base
field. The presentation of singularity of physics only proves it can
mislead many folks who take it too seriously. Tendency to unification in
physics is limited to hopeful full understanding of universal dynamics.
Singularity in physics was a mathematical curiosity nothing more, and
which was in need of logical clarification. The solution to the unity of
the four forces or effects is not in singularity understanding but in
energy's fundamental grasp. There can be no present unity because the
fields are in present perpetual non uniform motion only final unified
theoretical understanding of same.


the nightbat


nightbat, you are ignoring the importance of singularity as in the
present day physics. Can anyone underplay mathematical singularity for
his convinience. If so, one has to be content with his preconcieved or
read limited cyclic notions. This can hardly lead anyone to any
understanding, leave alone truth.

S S Shastry

nightbat wote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat, you are ignoring the importance of singularity as in the
present day physics. Can anyone underplay mathematical singularity for
his convinience. If so, one has to be content with his preconcieved or
read limited cyclic notions. This can hardly lead anyone to any
understanding, leave alone truth.

S S Shastry

nightbat

No my clueless wandering fellow in search of real knowledge and
truth, I did not ignor singularity question, for I and I alone
resultantly positively addressed it and respectfully provided said
resolution. I could not therefore underplay mathematical singularity
since I properly explained and resolved it. You are singularity obsessed
and content with your preconcieved and mixed up cyclic attribute
notions, because they apparently provide some comfort of while not
knowing making you think you and only you do know. Shastry, you are very
much like a person who couldn't find and hasn't drank water (Truth) for
a very long time, but when respectfully taken to it, you back up and
stomp your feet, raise your lips and show your teeth in distrust. But
your unquenchable thirst for water (Truth) makes you exam, like a
doubting Thomas, can this really be it, the answer is yes.


the nightbat