i shouldn't bother but just in case your wondering about that ;looped mathematics' it runs like this

1, 1, 4, 13, 43 (the bronze mean) and it loops like this

1, 1, 4. 13. 43 (loop) 4, 13, 43, (loop) 4, 13, 43 (loop) ...........

its an amazing piece of inner fracturing... creating complexity that leads to newer 'hyperspatial' dimensions... and you are in one now!

but it relies on an unchanging, divided but homogenous component... what I call the void... the void could be likened to a perfect mirror that connects everything... bit like string theory ....

however no two voids can meet....hence no quantum gravity field.... if they do meet, and the LHC has the potential to cause that to happen...it all changes.... and that change may cause the universe to converge on the 'double void'

the higgs boson in some respect is the void... it isnt but just like the void you cant actually find it.

another way of seeing this is that gravity is infact not the first force to emerge from the singularity, but the last but unlike the other three forces its a composite force, a product of the whole, what a toplogist would call a hyperspatial component.

you can show it mathematically using ternary logic...... but in truth you have to realize it... the answer to the ultimate question lies not in breaking the system down but understanding it in its completeness....... I think Hawkins said something along these lines once before...

if you want to carry on posting by all means do, but we are now in a loop....... endless circles with no solution

regards

gm23

regards

gm23

Hi Cuindless, just to recap…

You first posted making a reference the LHC Safety report, including the statement >>WARNING - It contains 15 pages of graduate level particle physics<< on Thu, August 6, 2009 - 5:21 PM


Then you posted 1 hour 44 minutes later
>>Did you not read my reply? It answered your question re the LHC quite succinctly. <<

35 minutes later you posted
>>Did you read the document in question?<<

Then on Friday , just over sixteen hours later (why so late, passed your bed time?)you posted…
>>You did not answer my question: Did you read the document?<<

4 hours later you post a list of points… in which you accuse me of being >>quite rude in your discussion. Please conduct yourself professionally if you truly wish to engage in worthwhile discourse. I have not treated you poorly in any way. <<

No you just barked away demanding I read a complex report in record time… it probable never and likely still hasn’t occurred to you that I may have already read the report…


>>Please read, review and understand this list if you actually care for further respectful and intellectual discourse in good faith. All else will be an affirmation of Troy's basic point. I am still willing to give you the benefit of doubt.<<

God it’s like being lectured too from a pompous teacher… I don’t care for your opinion of me personally… its irrelevant .. totally irrelevant ..

But what is relevant is intelligent and entertaining discourse and sadly repeatedly posting >>>>Did you read the document in question?<<<< is more akin to barking than intelligent discourse. I would love to read some intellectual discourse from you Cuindless but at present its sadly lacking.

As for your last post…

>>You say I "deserve" to be poked fun at. I find this statement disconcerting. I have made few, if any, posts in your direction other than asking polite questions. The fact that you call it barking reveals more about you than it does me. <<

Yes you do deserve having fun poked at you given your posts..and you didn’t ask polite questions… you repeatedly demanded I read the document, what I would call barking. The fact you put a question mark after it doesn’t particular make it a question and the absence of an address (I,e Hi, gm23) or a signature ( i.e thanks for your time,) lends it to being considered impolite or rude.. definitely not polite.


>>Now you are saying that Bridgeman was more intelligent and better educated about the specifics of quantum physics in 1927 than the entire team of physicists and mathematicians involved in the entire LHC project.<<

No that is not what I’m saying… I saying Bridgeman noted a possible error to quote "it is possible to analyze nature into correlations without. . . any assumption whatever as to the character of those correlations," and he argues that to go beyond empirical correlation into the realm of hypotheses of reasons for them is to "prejudice the future". The existence of this work came to light whilst doing undergraduate and was originally quoted in a paper by Cline (1962) who noted that a classification system can prejudice the future if such a classification system's criteria are hypotheses without some device for constant and inescapable scrutiny in relation to fact. Such acceptance can mould research into patterns of the past and can limit understanding of even new experience to concepts based on knowledge of the past (Cline, 1962). This work surfaced in relation to soil taxonomy… how removed could one get?

>> You're basically asserting that of all these vaunted Ph.D.s, not a single one of them noticed this "flaw" you speak of and commented about it. <<

Yup, and they can’t… because the rules that were laid down 70 years ago are prejudicing them… they are blinded by their own acceptance… it is sometimes called the intellectual investment… but I know it as the false notion.. and it’s the Achilles heal of science…

>>You are furthermore implying that YOU are more intelligent and better educated since you see the flaw as well. <<

No, that’s your assertion, flatter me if you like but I tend to liken it more to the story of the Kings new clothes… where my advantage (if any) comes in is I’m a soil scientist, or at least trained as one and soil is a rather complex multifaceted, multi-dimensional substrate.. In soil science we refer to it a the Soil Continuum.. and it buggers true description…. But it throws up patterns, temporal and spatial patterns.. and they fascinate me… and thos patterns are similarly very revealing…

>>Your assertion that they have been "indoctrinated" is a priori. You provide no evidence that they are indoctrinated, you simply rely on our faith in you to establish that. I have no such faith. I am a skeptic.<<

Not quite sure what you mean by priori (it is an unusual word with different definitions for different subjects) but as regards indoctrination they have PhD’s, they can wear mortar boards and gowns… what do you think indoctrination means? Of cos they are indoctrinated… if they had never agreed with what they were taught they would never have got their BSc, never accepted into the flock! …lol

>>Lastly, you refer to your post as bait. You thereby fully admit that you don't actually care about intellectual discourse.<<
the intellectual discourse, at least as far as the original post is concerned was well over (as I have repeated noted in my posts) and what you were treated to was a bit of double jeopardy.. afterall this post has degenerated, its become a farce so I was and still am contributing to it… so far no one has complained, likely they are doing what I do when a thread becomes tedious, not reading it or they are and similarly gaining a puerile laugh at ‘your’ and my expense.

>>This will be the end of our discourse. I had hoped that we might learn something from one another, but it appears that is not in the offing. Good day.<<

Well I wish you no bad feelings, why should I? I don’t know you but I haven’t learned anything from you either because apart from posting a link to a publicly available doc, you haven’t actually added anything…

And that is actually a shame….

Regards

GM23