Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000 Posts: 304

MidiChlorian wrote: I'm even more puzzled, "toto" at your comprehension of terms, where did you not say that you had an "engineering degree" or studied "engineering"? Therefore I ask, what type of engineering did you study? Since there are many groups within the general engineering field, like  "Chemical engineering", "Civil engineering", "Electrical engineering", "Mechanical engineering", "Systems engineering", and "Software (computer) engineering", where each one of these has subgroups of engineering study.
You are easily puzzled and surprised, Midi, so I will indulge you and answer your questions. My undergraduate degree is in Biomedical Engineering. It is an interdisciplinary subject so I took courses in 'signals and systems", 'thermodynamics', 'computer programming', 'continuum mechanics', 'biofluid mechanics', 'biosolid mechanics', 'neural augmentation', 'biomaterials', 'static and dynamics', 'physics', 'mathematics' at the graduate level, 'chemistry', 'molecular biology', 'physiology', 'biochemistry', and many other courses in science and engineering. I also have an MD degree so I have completed the course requirements for that discipline.
MidiChlorian wrote: So, I,m surprised that you do not understand the variations to the words presented like "dimension" and "pressure", where each has multiple references and meanings?
You must define your terms and not assume that you can communicate effectively through obfuscation.
MidiChlorian wrote: Not to mention that by your insertion of the UB quote above, where it states that, the authors "do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration", yet you seem to understand what they do not? Yet you fail to be able to present an explanation but, then again the word "respiration" has many meanings and/or definitions?
I never said that I knew the mechanism of space respiration. Space respirations are well presented in TUB. Where TUB stands clear on this you would want to add confusion. Why is this?
MidiChlorian wrote: Also, you previously indicated that you had not read the book in question where I have presented segments and illustrations by Walter Russell, and stated that you only read some of his spiritual narrations, which there are several, yet now you seem to indicate that you know what Russell presents, or does not present? How is this possible if you have not read the book in question? Or, have you since then read this text?
No, I have not read the book you site by Walter Russell. But I have taken a course that has many references to that book. It is, "A Course in Cosmic Consciousness", first presented by Walter and Lao Russell in 1950, and later updated by Yasuhiko Genku Kimura and Laara Lindo.
MidiChlorian wrote: So, you may see why I find you replies as argumentative without substance, and possibly without knowledge thereof, and only meant to possibly confuse anything someone has to say on any subject that you may really not have an understanding of?
How would you know that I don't know?
MidiChlorian wrote: P.S.: I'm curious as to your understanding of "entropy" as you have used it above: "For another half billion years the entire Universe of Universes is in entropy." Where there are several definitions of the word "entropy", which one do you interpret being as you used it above? If you need help you may start by choosing from the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation)
While you may want to quote Wikipedia, I will quote TUB on this topic. My mainstream science understanding of entropy comes from laboratory work and the solving of many entropy problems in engineering thermodynamics and heat transfer situations in mechanical engineering.
42:4.11 The increase of mass in matter is equal to the increase of energy divided by the square of the velocity of light. In a dynamic sense the work which resting matter can perform is equal to the energy expended in bringing its parts together from Paradise minus the resistance of the forces overcome in transit and the attraction exerted by the parts of matter on one another.
Your "cute" reference to Wikipedia begs the question. Did Wikipedia take Paradise into consideration when defining entropy?
The above quote refers to what we more commonly refer to as Einstein's equation, E =MC^2.
This equation, most notably associated with Albert Einstein, is recognizable by more nonspecialists and non scientists than any other. But how many know what it really means? Energy is equal to mass times the velocity of light squared. In physics it is the concept of massenergy equivalence developed by Einstein who proposed this equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabillis papers. Unfortunately, it also introduced the concept of rest energy and rest mass (invariant mass). This is not a useful concept because, as we have previously recognized, absolutely nothing in the Universe is at rest except the center of motion and the plane of infinity.
The equation has also been used to illustrate the enormous amount of energy that is potentially stored in matter simply because of the obviously large number ‘given’ to the speed of light. One problem with this assumption is that velocity is a calculated value defined as that slope of a tangent line of a curve determined at an instant. Obviously an instant is a point of no time. The other associated problem is that the curve in question is the motion of light. If, as Einstein proposed, the velocity of light is a constant, then it is not a curve, but rather a line on the graph. If light is a motion then it must have a center of motion. Having a center of motion means that light must have a radius of curvature. That radius of curvature may be so large that light may appear to be linear and constant in a limited frame. Does anyone see a the huge error in postulating that light speed is a constant?
The proportionality of this equation has been used to convert units of mass to units of energy, no matter what system of measurement is used. Suppose that I wish to use the speed of light as 1 unit of distance per second. Well, then mass and energy must be either equal to each other or the inverse of one another. We are still assuming that light speed is constant. If mass and energy are equal, then they are equally unchanging. This is known not to be true, so they must be the inverse of one another. In this scenario, the relationship of mass and energy must be the same and the rectangular hyperbola where y = 1/x. This seems wrong in that that the area under this curve is infinite and we know that neither mass nor energy are neither infinite nor zero.
Let us now make a better assumption and treat light as a particle with mass, momentum and radius of curvature. This would then make a lot more sense. We can see this much more clearly if we transform the equation E = MC^2 to a more understandable form. In consideration of this new assumption, if both sides of the equation are squared, the equation would read⎯
E^2 = M^2 (C^2)^2 or,
E^2 / M^2 = (C^2)^2
E^2 / M^2 = [(distance per time) ^2] ^2
Since time is circular and cannot be squared, then, (nor can a spherical shell be cubed) the equation becomes⎯
E^2 / M^2 = [(area per time)] ^2
The equation can then be transformed to⎯
[∆E / ∆M]^2 ∼ ∆(Hypercubic) space(circular)time
This is not the spacetime of Einstein.
If we give time its true circular dimensions orthogonal to space with its hyperbolic topology, we can clearly see the relationship between the velocity of light and 7 dimensional spacetime. The velocity at which light travels is directly correlated with the expansion of space at any instant. This is not calculable because space expansion and contraction, and simultaneous time dilation and constriction, are logarithmic functions. I have demonstrated that these functions are undefined in the calculus.
Recall that I had previously shown how space is 4 dimensional as a hypercube that expands and contracts and time as a 3 dimensional spherical shell that orthogonally relates to space and are inseparable as they are always in touch at six tangent points.
The point is the center of motion and is the focus of space while having no position in space (Paradise). When spacetime expandsdilates, mass radiates (decayentropy) its mass in the form of what we call electromagnetism or light energy (in quanta). When spacetime contractsconstricts about its focus, light energy is absorbed (growthenthalpy) by matter (in quanta) and this is the mass in matter increased. And this is continuous process at each and every point in space. These points exist at the nucleus of every speck of matter and they are all one and the same point. This is a metaphysical reality because one must concede that what is outside of motion is also devoid of spacetime. Having no position in space, the ‘point’ is everywhere all at once. Being a ubiquitous existence it can be said that the point is both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, and this existence is existential and unity. The point is the source of simultaneity and superposition and supersymmetry.
The point (Paradise) is the source of gravity pull, which can be referred to as absolute gravity, as contrasted to linear gravity. Linear gravity is the attractive force between the condensed energy in electronic materialization. Absolute gravity is the sole control of energymatter. Einstein’s equation, therefore, says that the increase of mass in matter is equal to the increase of energy divided by the rate of change in spacetime, as I have redefined spacetime.

