[N0B0DY]

Really hate to interject here, but it seems relevant to ask whether or not all conceivable and inconceivable points expanding against all conceivable and inconceivable points in all directions would negate each other's expandability?

Serious question, btw, RP.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY Really hate to interject here, but it seems relevant to ask whether or not all conceivable and inconceivable points expanding against all conceivable and inconceivable points in all directions would negate each other's expandability? Serious question, btw, RP.

Inconceivable points?
Negate each other's expandability?

G.P. Thompson (J.J. Thompson's son) proved that all electrons are expanding,
as recorded in JWN Sullivan's Limitations of Science.

Did you wish to contend that?

Suggest you familiarize yourself with http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

Best Regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

I said serious question, RP.

Electrons or any other particle can be said to be expanding. I really do grasp what you are saying about expansion and motion in general. The thing is that within the expanding electrons, for your instance, are there smaller-scale spherical extensions that are expanding as well?

Those latter particles I guess could be calssified as the inconceivable ones, though I just conceived of them, and the expansion of them in all directions would prevent the expansion of other spheres within spheres. Sort of like counter pressure of equal value in all directions, where expansion of some particles leads to the contraction of others and their meeting point would be the negating factor I'm referring to.

Not sure how clear that was to express myself, but the best I could do.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I said serious question, RP. Electrons or any other particle can be said to be expanding. I really do grasp what you are saying about expansion and motion in general. The thing is that within the expanding electrons, for your instance, are there smaller-scale spherical extensions that are expanding as well? Those latter particles I guess could be calssified as the inconceivable ones, though I just conceived of them, and the expansion of them in all directions would prevent the expansion of other spheres within spheres. Sort of like counter pressure of equal value in all directions, where expansion of some particles leads to the contraction of others and their meeting point would be the negating factor I'm referring to. Not sure how clear that was to express myself, but the best I could do.

_________________________

'Would prevent the expansion of (what?) other spheres within spheres'?
(What makes you think so?)

In any event, with or without a (speculated) heirarchy of multi-moment spheres within spheres:
serious answer Nobody:
electrons are experimentally found to be expanding.
Proved to be expanding.
No ifs, buts, maybes or perhaps's.

Your contention is overly speculative ('guess') and not well grounded.

I will enjoy continuing this discussion (preferably in another thread) after I get some sleep.
It's good to hear from you.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

"Cynic that I am, I think all three of you are the same person, trying to stir up publicity". - Jacobowski

For prelude continuuity on this commentary,
please refer to the first 10 posts of this thread.

Best Regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Dear Jacobowski:
Good to hear from you.

I recognize you from other posts on the net.

You're probably more of a skeptic than a cynic. The former is a doubter, the latter a denier.

Your doubts are understandable, though you evidently are not famliar with this poop fight as it has been occurring on the net for years, involving not three, but more like dozens of excrementally daunted opposing elements, versus Truly Yours.

Having failed to purloin or disqualify the issued work, the ongoing effort is to schmear and otherwise discredit the post facto author (Truly Yours).

The key opposition, whose real name is provided, is a veritable, certified google gargoyle, who's entrapped himself (pilfering my work) in archived - meadow pie projecting - posts on the net. He and his software adminstrating confederates - in not being able to take the self inflicted heat - have displaced much of my work (especially on the astronomy net) with quotes from Shakespeare.

Several of my countermanding forums have been hacked completely out of existence.
(Slandering my name - and stepping on my blue suede shoes - all over the place.)

Extant revilements and lewd lamentations reflecting the sterling character of the opposing elements are still in unerasable evidence, distributed all over the net...
Google: Brian Kirk Parquette (bkparque).

Drop by his net entangled, compulsive kopy kat (echo chamber engineered) forum - and draw your own conclusions.
Best regards,
- RP (AKA, Kent Benjamin Robertson, K. B. Robertson, Kent Robertson - re: google)

[MJA]

Dear RP,
Just a thought: Truth can not be owned, it can only be shared. And if it is only theory that you find yourself so concerned, who cares, it's not the truth.
All I had was two cents, hope it helped!

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by MJA Dear RP, Just a thought: Truth can not be owned, it can only be shared. And if it is only theory that you find yourself so concerned, who cares, it's not the truth. All I had was two cents, hope it helped! = MJA

______________________

Dear MJA:

No recollection here of ever having said or implied that I owned the truth. Whereas, there's defamation of character involved here which you're apparently unaware of, along with abundant copyright intrusions. That equals a skunkfight (refer =).

Your commentary probly = a lot more than two cents, though difficult to evaluate.
The issued hypotheory is being freely shared in a condensed presentation, at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie and also under the title 'The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field Theory', right here on TOEquest, in my blog.

Ten small press, hard copy editions have been sold out all over the world, since 1959. In many cases, abundantly shared at no cost. Innumerable people actually do care; enough to make me the recipient of - quite literally - hundreds of letters of congratulations and inquiry. I have a standing pen-pal relationship with scores of such caring people.

Post Script:
The 17 year old grandson of a life long friend (both familiar with my work) just read your entry and described it as 'flippant and superfluous'. I tactfully reminded him that you, MJA, are more in character as a gentle person with good intentions.

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

In academia plagiarism is taken most seriously.

In fact plagiarism and/or faked research are probably one of the few ways a professor can lose their position on the faculty. Usually we're protected under tenure and academic freedom.

And it really is a very personal violation.

Best to all,

Pat

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by MJA Dear RP, Just a thought: Truth can not be owned, it can only be shared. And if it is only theory that you find yourself so concerned, who cares, it's not the truth. All I had was two cents, hope it helped! = MJA

Dear MJA,

With your Double Standard, you belittle other theories but emphasize only your so-called truth/theory.

on 05-02-2007, 01:10 PM, Re: Effects of the expansion of physical matter with space. You wrote:
"Of all the people to have come before us, Einstein is my favorite. ........ and I believe most humbly I have finished his work on unification."

Actually, days ahead of such expression, you started a thread "Einstein's Work Completed" on 04-24-2007, 10:30 PM

GRAND UNIFICATION
-----------------------------------------
TRUTH

UNIFICATION IS EQUALITY

SIMPLY REMOVE THE UNCERTAINTY

OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

OR MEASURE

E = MC2

E = MC

E=M

=

UNIFICATION

SCIENCE IS THE MEASURE

OF UNCERTAIN DIFFERENCE

EQUAL IS NATURE'S

T.O.E

MJA

The writing was ended with: TOE MJA (TOE and MJA, relationship like that)

Another example: Re: can absolute nothing , produce something? - 08-26-2007, 12:45 AM "Something begets everything." Me

No matter how many "humbly" or MJA attached over those writings, experienced readers still know that MJA made claims loud and clear on the First Priority of his so-called Truths.

For the theory of others, you wrote "who cares, it's not the truth."
But for those self-interpreted magic empty words, over-simplification and over-generalization from you, you cared so much, even though most critical thinkers know that they are Fallacies, not Truths.

You said "Truth can only be shared" , but you do hard sell to persuade others to give up their own attempts, just to adopt your so-called truths and make developments base on your theory. You beautify your self propaganda as share with others!

Best Regards. Bottomlander