-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fwd: Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High
Schools]
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:12:27 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
To: nightbat
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astronomy
References:

nightbat wrote:

Third try with certain science meta tagged sites removed

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 04:25:19 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,alt.astronomy,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics.relativity,sci.astronomy
References:

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Well, nightbat, if the universe is real, tell me, how is it created
and from what?

And what, according to you, is the mathematical (zero
volume?)singularity in physical theories?

S S Shastry

nightbat

Per your first question: I explained that to you already but I
will surmise once again. The mathematical proof of energy's
indestructibility is science accepted. Of its energy/matter equivalence
it too is also mathematical proofed and accepted. Therefore if one
understands the importance of these mathematical proofs it means that
energy, including in the form of condensed matter state, can not be
created or destroyed, just transformed. Therefore in reference to
Universe application, and because of its present chaotic state, in the
absence of outside force or its proof, the Universe always was and never
was created because of accepted non falsified mathematical proofs. A
system or body in motion stays or remains in motion until another or
greater body or force acts upon it. No outside force has been observed
or detected. The Universe is therefore in a perennial loop of
recyclement.

Per your second question: The classical paradox zero volume singularity
in mathematical curiosity abstract deduced transform is reduced to zero
and the opposite of infinity per vector light analysis. It is in
reference to the Dr. Einstein's presented profound gravitational
equations as applied to space-time normal gravity metric field
formulations to strong gravity one. And when viewed or applied from a
frame of human optics it is correct. But when viewed or applied to
energy/matter substance, it is not. All vector analysis is therefore
frame dependent and can lead to paradoxes if not properly viewed or
applied. Translation, a stellar object can emit constant C light from
zero point origination to infinity per mathematical vector analysis. And
infinite energy/mass can theoretically enter point event horizon per
point of origination directional into a deep strong gravity field to
center cone singularity point or to theoretical zero volume (no outlet),
optically correct but null real world premise. Bose-Einstein proposed
resolution was attempt to solve paradox with null result. For all energy
and matter occupy
space volume no matter how abstract mathematically 3D plus time point
condensed, while optically and theoretical black hole frame zero
paradox. A curiosity but null real world premise. Dr. Einstein himself
discounted this possibility due to Pauli states while Dr. Oppenheimer
voted for the quantum state possibility.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...lackHoles.html

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...ectorLand.html



Cosmic theoretical space bodies can be deduced per optically or
mathematically multi light year distant measured to be infinite distant
or condensed as point zero. But they are never energy or matter point
zero per effects of visible detectable bodies. Radio telescopes have now
detected and confirmed center galactic strong gravity field and
immensely distant stars and galaxies which were before undetectable or
zero visually. In cosmology and math zero frame is correct as applied
visually but never to point energy or matter. And no where in all this
analysis is human attribute conscience applied.

the nightbat

(snip)
"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Well, nightbat, if the universe is real, tell me, how is it created
and from what?

And what, according to you, is the mathematical (zero
volume?)singularity in physical theories?

S S Shastry

nightbat

Per your first question: I explained that to you already but I
will surmise once again. The mathematical proof of energy's
indestructibility is science accepted. Of its energy/matter equivalence
it too is also mathematical proofed and accepted. Therefore if one
understands the importance of these mathematical proofs it means that
energy, including in the form of condensed matter state, can not be
created or destroyed, just transformed. Therefore in reference to
Universe application, and because of its present chaotic state, in the
absence of outside force or its proof, the Universe always was and never
was created because of accepted non falsified mathematical proofs. A
system or body in motion stays or remains in motion until another or
greater body or force acts upon it. No outside force has been observed
or detected. The Universe is therefore in a perennial loop of
recyclement.

Per your second question: The classical paradox zero volume singularity
in mathematical curiosity abstract deduced transform is reduced to zero
and the opposite of infinity per vector light analysis. It is in
reference to the Dr. Einstein's presented profound gravitational
equations as applied to space-time normal gravity metric field
formulations to strong gravity one. And when viewed or applied from a
frame of human optics it is correct. But when viewed or applied to
energy/matter substance, it is not. All vector analysis is therefore
frame dependent and can lead to paradoxes if not properly viewed or
applied. Translation, a stellar object can emit constant C light from
zero point origination to infinity per mathematical vector analysis. And
infinite energy/mass can theoretically enter point event horizon per
point of origination directional into a deep strong gravity field to
center cone singularity point or to theoretical zero volume (no outlet),
optically correct but null real world premise. Bose-Einstein proposed
resolution was attempt to solve paradox with null result. For all energy
and matter occupy
space volume no matter how abstract mathematically 3D plus time point
condensed, while optically and theoretical black hole frame zero
paradox. A curiosity but null real world premise. Dr. Einstein himself
discounted this possibility due to Pauli states while Dr. Oppenheimer
voted for the quantum state possibility.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...e_u rl=http%3
%2F%2Farchive.ncsa.uiuc.edu%2FCyberia%2FNumRel%2FB lackHoles.html

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...ve_url=http%3A
2F%2Fmembers.tripod.com%2F%7EPaul_Kirby%2Fvector%2 FVectorLand.html



Cosmic theoretical space bodies can be deduced per optically or
mathematically multi light year distant measured to be infinite distant
or condensed as point zero. But they are never energy or matter point
zero per effects of visible detectable bodies. Radio telescopes have now
detected and confirmed center galactic strong gravity field and
immensely distant stars and galaxies which were before undetectable or
zero visually. In cosmology and math zero frame is correct as applied
visually but never to point energy or matter. And no where in all this
analysis is human attribute conscience applied.

the nightbat


Unfortunately, nightbat, neither you nor the present day physics has
understood that the mathematical singularity which is 'infinity at
zero' can no longer belong to this 'reality' of the universe.
Singularity is a 'deeper reality' where nothing else exists, not even
the universe. Now, this 'deeper reality' is the reality and so its
'dependent reality' has to be illusory, for, it 'appears to be real'.

Now, this singularity based universe while providing the resolution
for its origin also provides the foundation for the quantum and
relativity theories. Whereas, your (zero volume?)singularity null
premise provides neither an answer for the question of origin nor can
it provide foundation for the modern theories. Your arguments as in
present day physics lack this necessity for the basic singularity, and
so, are limited to their own domain.

Moreover, it is the recognition of singularity as the singular
consciousness which is important as our innermost self from where the
universe appears and can also disappear. Is it not surprising to know
that the universe originates neither at a distant place nor at a
distant past but from within us here and now, always?

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Unfortunately, nightbat, neither you nor the present day physics has
understood that the mathematical singularity which is 'infinity at
zero' can no longer belong to this 'reality' of the universe.
Singularity is a 'deeper reality' where nothing else exists, not even
the universe. Now, this 'deeper reality' is the reality and so its
'dependent reality' has to be illusory, for, it 'appears to be real'.

nightbat

Shastry you're misstating what I had explained to you. Infinity
to observer frame applied object distance to infinity distant point is
zero and correct optically however not as applied to energy or matter.
The Universe doesn't care about human optic ability, testing ability, or
human limited reality understanding of itself. Classical singularity is
a null premise. Your mixed up understanding of total consciousness
singularity apparently holds a deeper reality to you but is not reality.
Human total consciousness reality formulation is not within the purview
of physics, logic and proofed postulates and mathematical formulations
are. There is no such thing as so called dependent reality in physics
therefore human attribute is improper. What is illusory by definition
and in optics as applied to the Universe is what does not exist as to
frame cause but not to possible effect. What can be illusory effect
therefore to what actually exists or its cause, energy/matter, is
reserved, and therefore conversely is and always should be inclusive
frame and time dependent.


Shastry
Now, this singularity based universe while providing the resolution
for its origin also provides the foundation for the quantum and
relativity theories. Whereas, your (zero volume?)singularity null
premise provides neither an answer for the question of origin nor can
it provide foundation for the modern theories. Your arguments as in
present day physics lack this necessity for the basic singularity, and
so, are limited to their own domain.

nightbat

The Universe is not based on your incorrect understanding of
singularity attribute of total consciousness and does not provide
resolution for Universe origin. Fundamental understanding of energy and
matter does. Nightbat resolution of Dr. Einstein's deduced classical
singularity provides for the pointing internal cosmic mechanism of
Universal dynamics. The foundation for quantum and relative theories is
provided by the full understanding and grasp of field dynamics not
merely singularity resolution. The Dr. Einstein mathematical abstract
infinite energy/matter in zero volume (no outlet) singularity curiosity
paradox is not mine Shastry, but its postulate resolution is. Dr.
Einstein's original paradox presentation was merely a mathematical
curiosity not for deducing Universe origin or foundation for modern
theories, for they did not exist at the time. I present no arguments
except logical response and have provided to you said resolution. Your
understanding and human attribute of singularity as point total
conscience is outside the domain of physics as previously advised.

Shastry
Moreover, it is the recognition of singularity as the singular
consciousness which is important as our innermost self from where the
universe appears and can also disappear. Is it not surprising to know
that the universe originates neither at a distant place nor at a
distant past but from within us here and now, always?

S S Shastry

nightbat

Sadly Shastry, you're still mixed up as ever, are you not
getting anything of what I am indicating to you? The Universe is real
and does not originate within you, plural us, or your mixed up
concoctions. The Dr. Einstein presented paradox singularity curiosity
has nothing to do with consciousness, get over it. The Universe exists
regardless of your or human present limited understanding. Long before
and long after you're gone Mr. Shastry, the Universe will, per energy
and matter and absence of outside force, continue.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

Unfortunately, nightbat, neither you nor the present day physics has
understood that the mathematical singularity which is 'infinity at
zero' can no longer belong to this 'reality' of the universe.
Singularity is a 'deeper reality' where nothing else exists, not even
the universe. Now, this 'deeper reality' is the reality and so its
'dependent reality' has to be illusory, for, it 'appears to be real'.


nightbat

Shastry you're misstating what I had explained to you. Infinity
to observer frame applied object distance to infinity distant point is
zero and correct optically however not as applied to energy or matter.
The Universe doesn't care about human optic ability, testing ability, or
human limited reality understanding of itself.Classical singularity is
a null premise. Your mixed up understanding of total consciousness
singularity apparently holds a deeper reality to you but is not reality.
Human total consciousness reality formulation is not within the purview
of physics, logic and proofed postulates and mathematical formulations
are. There is no such thing as so called dependent reality in physics
therefore human attribute is improper. What is illusory by definition
and in optics as applied to the Universe is what does not exist as to
frame cause but not to possible effect. What can be illusory effect
therefore to what actually exists or its cause, energy/matter, is
reserved, and therefore conversely is and always should be inclusive
frame and time dependent.


nightbat, the universe has been derived by me to be illusory from its
origin, the singularity. Now, let me know the basis on which you
repeatedly assert it to be real?


Shastry
Now, this singularity based universe while providing the resolution
for its origin also provides the foundation for the quantum and
relativity theories. Whereas, your (zero volume?)singularity null
premise provides neither an answer for the question of origin nor can
it provide foundation for the modern theories. Your arguments as in
present day physics lack this necessity for the basic singularity, and
so, are limited to their own domain.


nightbat

The Universe is not based on your incorrect understanding of
singularity attribute of total consciousness and does not provide
resolution for Universe origin. Fundamental understanding of energy and
matter does. Nightbat resolution of Dr. Einstein's deduced classical
singularity provides for the pointing internal cosmic mechanism of
Universal dynamics. The foundation for quantum and relative theories is
provided by the full understanding and grasp of field dynamics not
merely singularity resolution. The Dr. Einstein mathematical abstract
infinite energy/matter in zero volume (no outlet) singularity curiosity
paradox is not mine Shastry, but its postulate resolution is. Dr.
Einstein's original paradox presentation was merely a mathematical
curiosity not for deducing Universe origin or foundation for modern
theories, for they did not exist at the time. I present no arguments
except logical response and have provided to you said resolution. Your
understanding and human attribute of singularity as point total
conscience is outside the domain of physics as previously advised.


Merely negating reason on the basis current understanding only stops
advancement in physics. No theories are required if one is stubborn on
the obvious. Theories are needed to decipher truth.


Shastry
Moreover, it is the recognition of singularity as the singular
consciousness which is important as our innermost self from where the
universe appears and can also disappear. Is it not surprising to know
that the universe originates neither at a distant place nor at a
distant past but from within us here and now, always?

S S Shastry


nightbat

Sadly Shastry, you're still mixed up as ever, are you not
getting anything of what I am indicating to you? The Universe is real
and does not originate within you, plural us, or your mixed up
concoctions. The Dr. Einstein presented paradox singularity curiosity
has nothing to do with consciousness, get over it. The Universe exists
regardless of your or human present limited understanding. Long before
and long after you're gone Mr. Shastry, the Universe will, per energy
and matter and absence of outside force, continue.


the nightbat


nightbat, your argument rests on your limitation as in the present day
physics on the visible side of the universe. In order to transcend
this limitation a greater effort is needed behind visible universe.
For, that is the one which is most important, necessary for resolving
the current paradoxes in physics. Otherwise, one will be repeating the
apparent by cyclical argument without any substantial gain in
knowledge.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote



"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:
nightbat, the universe has been derived by me to be illusory from its
origin, the singularity. Now, let me know the basis on which you
repeatedly assert it to be real?

nightbat

Shastry, that you derive the Universe to be illusory is your
error, proofed theory presented postulates and empirical testing and
evidence affirms otherwise. Further answer to your question lies in your
ability to answer and understand these two questions:
How many miles are you to point distance yourself?
Is the answer the same as your point energy/matter makeup?
A quantified space point can have determinant separate optic length and
content factor value at the same time. Multi different varying factors
are applicable to the same point. The proof existence substance of the
Universe physical/quantum in part or totality is not zero. And the
origin of energy is none due to its indestructibility. The understanding
of the Universe is not intuitive but logical frame and time
dependent.


Shastry
Merely negating reason on the basis current understanding only stops
advancement in physics. No theories are required if one is stubborn on
the obvious. Theories are needed to decipher truth.


nightbat

Reason was not negated but explained to you as energy and matter.
Apparently even though referred respectfully and its previous fact known
and explained, it still stops your physics understanding and therefore
opts your bias preferred dependence on derivation of energy/matter
Universe as illusory and point singularity null attribute to it of
consciousness. Energy and matter are not theories but proofed fact. Ha,
ha Shastry, it was your original opinion that no present physics theory
could ascertain truth or determine basis of Universe. I must resultantly
be finally making some headway as little as it may seem.


Shastry
nightbat, your argument rests on your limitation as in the present day
physics on the visible side of the universe. In order to transcend
this limitation a greater effort is needed behind visible universe.
For, that is the one which is most important, necessary for resolving
the current paradoxes in physics. Otherwise, one will be repeating the
apparent by cyclical argument without any substantial gain in
knowledge.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Shastry, you're examining my posts yet not ascertaining or fully
grasping its content. I have already respectfully advised that the real
Universe is based on energy and matter. The human visible optic Universe
is not exclusive of the invisible quantum one. My indications are not
limited to the Dr. Einstein original preferred relative observable
physical or visible side only. The Oppenheimer pointing to the Maxwell
invisible micro quantum field is addressed as needed in unity with the
relative physical one for unification of fields and resolution and full
understanding of the Universe dynamics. The understanding and reduction
to practice of the physical is all that was hopefully thought needed per
R for unity of fields of the immense visible universe by Dr. Einstein
and fellow relativists but was not ascertained due to the uncertainty
presented duality macro quantum state nature of energy. The visible
physical does not provide easily deducible total insight or certainty to
the multi state of the apparent entwined invisible quantum. Not all
paradoxes in mathematical abstract are quantum related nor is per your
erroneous attributing the Universe illusory based on null classical
singularity. I have provided said resolution with equation and
explanations and your redundant attempting to rely on known quantum
uncertainty for your human attribute of applied total consciousness to
point singularity null premise is subject discipline mixing and
improper.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote



"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:
nightbat, the universe has been derived by me to be illusory from its
origin, the singularity. Now, let me know the basis on which you
repeatedly assert it to be real?

nightbat

Shastry, that you derive the Universe to be illusory is your
error, proofed theory presented postulates and empirical testing and
evidence affirms otherwise. Further answer to your question lies in your
ability to answer and understand these two questions:
How many miles are you to point distance yourself?
Is the answer the same as your point energy/matter makeup?
A quantified space point can have determinant separate optic length and
content factor value at the same time. Multi different varying factors
are applicable to the same point. The proof existence substance of the
Universe physical/quantum in part or totality is not zero. And the
origin of energy is none due to its indestructibility. The understanding
of the Universe is not intuitive but logical frame and time
dependent.


Shastry
Merely negating reason on the basis current understanding only stops
advancement in physics. No theories are required if one is stubborn on
the obvious. Theories are needed to decipher truth.


nightbat

Reason was not negated but explained to you as energy and matter.
Apparently even though referred respectfully and its previous fact known
and explained, it still stops your physics understanding and therefore
opts your bias preferred dependence on derivation of energy/matter
Universe as illusory and point singularity null attribute to it of
consciousness. Energy and matter are not theories but proofed fact. Ha,
ha Shastry, it was your original opinion that no present physics theory
could ascertain truth or determine basis of Universe. I must resultantly
be finally making some headway as little as it may seem.


Shastry
nightbat, your argument rests on your limitation as in the present day
physics on the visible side of the universe. In order to transcend
this limitation a greater effort is needed behind visible universe.
For, that is the one which is most important, necessary for resolving
the current paradoxes in physics. Otherwise, one will be repeating the
apparent by cyclical argument without any substantial gain in
knowledge.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Shastry, you're examining my posts yet not ascertaining or fully
grasping its content. I have already respectfully advised that the real
Universe is based on energy and matter. The human visible optic Universe
is not exclusive of the invisible quantum one. My indications are not
limited to the Dr. Einstein original preferred relative observable
physical or visible side only. The Oppenheimer pointing to the Maxwell
invisible micro quantum field is addressed as needed in unity with the
relative physical one for unification of fields and resolution and full
understanding of the Universe dynamics. The understanding and reduction
to practice of the physical is all that was hopefully thought needed per
R for unity of fields of the immense visible universe by Dr. Einstein
and fellow relativists but was not ascertained due to the uncertainty
presented duality macro quantum state nature of energy. The visible
physical does not provide easily deducible total insight or certainty to
the multi state of the apparent entwined invisible quantum. Not all
paradoxes in mathematical abstract are quantum related nor is per your
erroneous attributing the Universe illusory based on null classical
singularity. I have provided said resolution with equation and
explanations and your redundant attempting to rely on known quantum
uncertainty for your human attribute of applied total consciousness to
point singularity null premise is subject discipline mixing and
improper.


the nightbat


nightbat, your explaining away of singularity as in the present day
physics is flawed. For, the singularity being 'infinity at zero' can
no longer belong to your "real" universe. Singularity is another,
deepest reality where nothing else, not even the universe exists. And
so, it has to be left without any scope for manipulative
interpretation. If this point is not understood nothing worthwhile can
be discussed.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote


Shastry
nightbat, your explaining away of singularity as in the present day
physics is flawed. For, the singularity being 'infinity at zero' can
no longer belong to your "real" universe. Singularity is another,
deepest reality where nothing else, not even the universe exists. And
so, it has to be left without any scope for manipulative
interpretation. If this point is not understood nothing worthwhile can
be discussed.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Not true Shastry, for that was Dr. Einstein's paradox premise
not mine. Singularity paradox of infinity at point zero is a null
premise. The black hole enigma was caused by this mathematical transform
deduced factor curiosity. Infinity energy/matter to zero volume or no
outlet is not a real world viable existent. Despite Bose-Einstein
brilliant attempts at resolution, none was appropriate. Even Hawking's
analysis now points to theoretical possibility of horizon radiance
disbursement of same. The nightbat profound postulate presentation "
Black Comet " disclosed logical insight possibility and more long before
any had contemplated a resolution for the Einstein anomaly. The Chandra
upper limit and Pauli state understanding for neutron stellar class
bodies was a mathematical mass proof and macro state confining
understanding for resolution of even denser hypothesis of Einstein
insight. The Oppenheimer genius quantum pointing was in reference to
hopeful resolution but was abandoned by same due to the war and other
more pressing physics matters. The answer laid in the quantum fermion
state of matter not totally grasped to task or further applied
investigated at the time of first inquiry by these atomic theory period
great man including with now Hawking astute mathematical applied
evaporative process attempt follow-up. Paradox resolution finally
provides for theoretical universe internal dynamics, and insight into
galactic formation.

See previous Deja news usenet archive and now google under nightbat
hierarchy net science inter group related posts and further
understanding under Hawking google related info on possible black hole
disbursement. Also new common applied or referred term gravastar per Los
Alamos research team physics theorists.

Additionally you may see referenced Arizona State University on stellar
formation article link posted recently on alt.astronomy:
http://clas.asu.edu/newsevents/press...es/photos/HII/

The Universe is real Shastry if you care to really check and look. Does
a scientist or researcher know everything, they wouldn't be called
researchers if they did.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote


Shastry
nightbat, your explaining away of singularity as in the present day
physics is flawed. For, the singularity being 'infinity at zero' can
no longer belong to your "real" universe. Singularity is another,
deepest reality where nothing else, not even the universe exists. And
so, it has to be left without any scope for manipulative
interpretation. If this point is not understood nothing worthwhile can
be discussed.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Not true Shastry, for that was Dr. Einstein's paradox premise
not mine. Singularity paradox of infinity at point zero is a null
premise. The black hole enigma was caused by this mathematical transform
deduced factor curiosity. Infinity energy/matter to zero volume or no
outlet is not a real world viable existent. Despite Bose-Einstein
brilliant attempts at resolution, none was appropriate. Even Hawking's
analysis now points to theoretical possibility of horizon radiance
disbursement of same. The nightbat profound postulate presentation "
Black Comet " disclosed logical insight possibility and more long before
any had contemplated a resolution for the Einstein anomaly. The Chandra
upper limit and Pauli state understanding for neutron stellar class
bodies was a mathematical mass proof and macro state confining
understanding for resolution of even denser hypothesis of Einstein
insight. The Oppenheimer genius quantum pointing was in reference to
hopeful resolution but was abandoned by same due to the war and other
more pressing physics matters. The answer laid in the quantum fermion
state of matter not totally grasped to task or further applied
investigated at the time of first inquiry by these atomic theory period
great man including with now Hawking astute mathematical applied
evaporative process attempt follow-up. Paradox resolution finally
provides for theoretical universe internal dynamics, and insight into
galactic formation.

See previous Deja news usenet archive and now google under nightbat
hierarchy net science inter group related posts and further
understanding under Hawking google related info on possible black hole
disbursement. Also new common applied or referred term gravastar per Los
Alamos research team physics theorists.

Additionally you may see referenced Arizona State University on stellar
formation article link posted recently on alt.astronomy:
http://clas.asu.edu/newsevents/press...es/photos/HII/

The Universe is real Shastry if you care to really check and look. Does
a scientist or researcher know everything, they wouldn't be called
researchers if they did.


the nightbat


nightbat, your mixing up manipulative interpretation of singularity
within your "real" universe, as in the present day physics, is an
error. As such, the resolution of paradoxes of physics are not in its
present restricted scope.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote




Shastry
nightbat, your mixing up manipulative interpretation of singularity
within your "real" universe, as in the present day physics, is an
error. As such, the resolution of paradoxes of physics are not in its
present restricted scope.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Shastry, look at the relative science groups of interest under
this subject posted thread, do you see alt.religion.kibology or
alt.philosophy? The mix-up of belief of non real or admitted as non
discernible illusory universe is yours and has nothing to do with
present physics. The error pointed out to you is a fundamental one of
subject mixing. The resolution for or any physics present paradoxes are
within physics, the math ones, within mathematics, and your apparent
cross understanding of any of them null.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote




Shastry
nightbat, your mixing up manipulative interpretation of singularity
within your "real" universe, as in the present day physics, is an
error. As such, the resolution of paradoxes of physics are not in its
present restricted scope.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Shastry, look at the relative science groups of interest under
this subject posted thread, do you see alt.religion.kibology or
alt.philosophy? The mix-up of belief of non real or admitted as non
discernible illusory universe is yours and has nothing to do with
present physics. The error pointed out to you is a fundamental one of
subject mixing. The resolution for or any physics present paradoxes are
within physics, the math ones, within mathematics, and your apparent
cross understanding of any of them null.


the nightbat


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.

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