>From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com)
>Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
>Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, >alt.sci.physics
>Date: 2005-01-21 13:58:11 PST

>"SDR" wrote in message
>news:58087ec7.0501210455.6a1011c@posting.google.com...
>> >From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com)
>> >Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
>> >Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, >>alt.sci.physics
>> >Date: 2005-01-20 23:37:07 PST
>> >"SDR" wrote in message
>> >news:58087ec7.0501201535.5c00d699@posting.google.com...
>> >[snip]
>> >I say, old boy, what about attending a simple mathematics course?
>> >Franz

>> Tried it, Franz.

>Thanks for admitting you are a failure.
>Franz

A misinterpretation of what I wrote, Franz:

START QUOTE:

Tried it, Franz. But I began to get this urge
to start spreading una-bombs around the country.
So I dropped it before it became a really bad habit
with me: How's the sickness going with you?

END QUOTE

Clearly I admit to success. But it's encouraging to me
so see that you are incapable of understanding even
the simplest paragraph.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com

Using out-of-context stuff to perpetrate a cheap fraud,
Franz? Not one bit embarrassed about little children
losing all respect for you, eh, Franz? Nice going.

From:	Double-A
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence of the universe]
Date:	24 Jan 2005 00:03:04 -0800

John Doe wrote:
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact
> >of the existence of everything:
>
> If everything is relative, what is everything relative to?
>

And how do you define existence?

Double-A

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:30:36 GMT

Double-A:

Double-A wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>
>>Ralph Hertle wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact
>>>of the existence of everything:
>>
>>If everything is relative, what is everything relative to?
>>
> And how do you define existence?
>
> Double-A
>

Existence is the widest possible concept that identifies what exists, and
it includes the entire universe.

Existence is everything that is.
Existence is everything.
Existence is all that exists.

Existence is first the substance of everything, or that which is, and
secondly, existence is the functioning of all existents, or that which has
properties, the potential for change according to the nature of its
properties, and which continues to exist.

Ralph Hertle

From:	robert j. kolker
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:57:31 -0500

Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> Existence is the widest possible concept that identifies what exists,
> and it includes the entire universe.

Oh man, you do love your circularities, don't you?
>
> Existence is everything that is.
> Existence is everything.
> Existence is all that exists.

Are you president of Tautologies Is Us?

Bob Kolker

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:23:49 GMT

S D Rodrian:

S D Rodrian Wrote:
"Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"

[clip]

Isn't the premise of your subject one that necessitates that the Law of
Cause and Effect is not operative. In other words, if as you imply that
there was nothing prior to the universe wouldn't it also be true that there
would have been nothing existing that could have been a cause for everything.

All causes are the result of the functioning properties of existents. There
are no causes that spring from nothing.

You logic simply doesn't follow.

Nor can you prove such an origin. Where is your proof? You have none.

My understanding is that the universe is. That is, that the universe exists
having certain properties, and that it continues to exist.

The Universe exists. That means that everything exists.

My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact of the
existence of everything:

The universe is a continuing plurality of existents.

That fact is provable, and that fact is implicit in every scientific
experiment and scientific demonstration ever made.

The concept is implies and identifies the continuity of existence.

The universe is.

The concept of eternity implies the continuity of existence.

The universe is eternal in its existence.

Ralph Hertle

From:	Franz Heymann
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence of the universe]
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:23:16 +0000 (UTC)

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
news:41F28C24.4030407@verizon.net...
> S D Rodrian:
>
>
> S D Rodrian Wrote:
> "Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
>
> [clip]
>
>
> Isn't the premise of your subject one that necessitates that the Law
of
> Cause and Effect is not operative. In other words, if as you imply
that
> there was nothing prior to the universe wouldn't it also be true
that there
> would have been nothing existing that could have been a cause for
everything.

You are mistaken in thinking that there was a prior time.

[snip]

Franz

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:07:54 GMT

Franz Heymann:

[clip]
> You are mistaken in thinking that there was a prior time.
>
> [snip]
>
> Franz

What is the prior time to which you refer and that you imply doesn't exist.

That's a contradiction.

Time is the relative motion of moving physical entities measured as a
mathematical ratio with regard to another moving entity that is specified
as a standard reference.

You imply that there was no prior time during a presumed state of
non-existence.

That implies that no physical entities exist in the state of non-existence
that you claim that existed.

You have zero proof of any non-existence of the physical universe or
physical entities of any type, anywhere, or at any time.

Proof of non-existence is rationally impossible.

The only proofs that are possible in science are proofs, including
discoveries, identifications, conceptualizations, and demonstrations of
physical existents.

There can be no proofs of nothing.
There can be no discoveries of nothing.
There can be no identifications of nothing.
There can be no conceptualizations of nothing.
There can be no demonstrations of nothing.

If you say that the opposites are true, well, you might find that the
insane asylums, and some universities, are populated with those who think
as you.

Only somethings, that is, everything, exists.

The concept of 'is', or existence, has as its very core the continuation of
substance.

The concept of continuation is a corollary to substance, and together, the
axiom that, "Existence is existing" (Ayn Rand and Aristotle in the
philosophy of science) is formed to identify the basic fact of the
universe. That is, that,

Everything exists, and exists continually.

The next time you use the terms, identity, equals (=), is, is proportional
to (::), is in a ratio to (:), or is the same as, you are using a form of
conceptual identification that defines that which exists. You can't speak
continually and coherently without that concept - "is" is basic to
existence - to the universe.

Don't tell me that mathematics doesn't exist where there is nothing.

I will say that mathematics is the science identifies, and more
specifically, measures, the facts and properties of existents in the universe.

If you extend your time number line into reverse and into claimed
non-existence, which is impossible for well known physical and scientific
reasons, I will say that you cannot do so without invoking elements of
Euclidean geometry.

Ralph Hertle

From:	robert j. kolker
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:18:43 -0500

Ralph Hertle wrote:

>
> Proof of non-existence is rationally impossible.

It is easily provable that there do not exist two integers m, n, n != 0,
relatively prime such that m^2/n^2 = 2.

Do you have any other words of wisdom for us?

Bob Kolker

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:17:34 GMT

Bob Kolker:

robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>> Proof of non-existence is rationally impossible.
>
> It is easily provable that there do not exist two integers m, n, n != 0,
> relatively prime such that m^2/n^2 = 2.
>
> Do you have any other words of wisdom for us?
>
> Bob Kolker

I'm not an expert in mathematics, and I'll offer this:

The proof of the non-existence of two different integers that meet certain
conditions requires a proof that uses the definitions of m and n in terms
of mathematical existents. You can't make the proof if the definitions of m
and n identify non-existents.

For example one iteration could be nothing/nothing=nothing. Nothing is here
defined as an epistemological existent that has existence only as a
concept, but that the concept has its content to include a lack of
particulars and that are also unspecified.

The more appropriate interpretation of, "nothing/nothing=nothing", would
be, "number/number=number" in terms of epistemological existents.

One could prove that a relationship of certain numbers exists, and never
that a relationship of nothings exists. Without relationships no proofs are
possible.

Existences are everything when it comes to proving anything. Nothing being
a particular form of anything, where anything is made of existents.

Ralph Hertle

From:	robert j. kolker
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:33:29 -0500

Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not an expert in mathematics, and I'll offer this:

That surely is the case.

The point is that I proved a negative. Now admit you are wrong and learn
something from it.

Mathematics is chockful of impossibility proofs.

Bob Kolker

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:48:54 GMT

robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not an expert in mathematics, and I'll offer this:
>
>
> That surely is the case.
>
> The point is that I proved a negative. Now admit you are wrong and learn
> something from it.
>
> Mathematics is chockful of impossibility proofs.
>
> Bob Kolker

No, you didn't prove a negative. You can prove that something doesn't exist
only by reference to an existent, an existent that isn't there. For
example, that there is no ball there. You can't prove that nothing is there
unless you refer to the thing and its absence. The locale should be specified.

Epistemological concepts are potentially more difficult, for example, to
prove that there is no triangle in a certain area of space requires that
only known and proved concepts be referred to in the proof.

Only (meta. or epist.) existents exist in the universe either as physical
things or as concepts. In the physical world only physical things exist.
There is no nothing.

BTW, do you know what the "Closest Packing of the Universe Theory" is and
who created it?

Ralph Hertle

From:	John Doe
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence of the universe]
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:25:10 GMT

Ralph Hertle wrote:

....

>My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact
>of the existence of everything:

If everything is relative, what is everything relative to?

From:	Ralph Hertle
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:20:43 GMT

John Doe:

John Doe wrote:
> Ralph Hertle wrote:
> ...
>
>>My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact
>>of the existence of everything:
>
> If everything is relative, what is everything relative to?
>

Everything is not relative, that is, its being is not subject to human
consciousness or to any matters of ideas, emotions, wishes, or subjective
hopefulness.

Existence is the primary, and that is an absolute - not relative to any
lesser consideration. Existence is.

Read Ayn Rand and Aristotle for the best technical explanations.

Ralph Hertle

From:	robert j. kolker
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:56:20 -0500

Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> Read Ayn Rand and Aristotle for the best technical explanations.

Aristotle was a piss-poor physicist who got motion all wrong and Ayn
Rand was a scientific and mathematical ignoramus. Pythogorean mystics
like Kepler got the motion of the planets nearly right. The Aristotelans
believed in crystaline spheres and epi-cycles.

If you want an answer to the question - Who is John Galt- then read
Rand. If you want to know what the speed of light in a vacuum is reading
Rand will not help a bit.

Bob Kolker

From:	robert j. kolker
Subject:	Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:28:57 -0500

Ralph Hertle wrote:

> All causes are the result of the functioning properties of existents.
> There are no causes that spring from nothing.

You mean that we don't know of any. That is true. Everything that
happens we assume has a cause. That is a generalization from our
experience.
>
> My understanding is that the universe is. That is, that the universe
> exists having certain properties, and that it continues to exist.
>
> The Universe exists. That means that everything exists.

You are saying that all that is exists which is not very enlightening.
By the way a four sided triangle does not exist. There are namable
describable entities which do not exist. Which is rather odd.
>
> My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic fact of
> the existence of everything:
>
> The universe is a continuing plurality of existents.
>
> That fact is provable, and that fact is implicit in every scientific
> experiment and scientific demonstration ever made.

Facts are not provable since that would imply a fact has a premise from
which it follows by logic. Facts just are. Facts do not need logic to be.
>
> The concept is implies and identifies the continuity of existence.
>
> The universe is.
>
> The concept of eternity implies the continuity of existence.
>
> The universe is eternal in its existence.

We cannot say for sure that the universe will always exist, but we can
say the universe has pre-existed all of us. I have no doubt that the
universe will be there long after I am dust in the wind. So what of it?

Bob Kolker