RSolomon

Moderator Note The rules require that anything being discussed must be posted. Attachments can be used for supporting material only So, what seems to be the problem? Solomon

To Whom ir May Concern… The electricity went down here, causing the loss of an earlier more thoughtful response. So now days later & after the harvest, is a brief response. It seems that all attempts to get a serious response to the most pivotal assertions, which has gotten lost in debates over secondary issues, i.e., quotes & such. Having considered valid criticism, while deeming the nonsense unworthy of our time or efforts. The matter of an omission within the fundamental body of natural geometric knowledge is of primary significance, if no one there is willing or able to acknowledge, or to refuted it… If so, then the matter has gone to the wrong forum. The assertion is, that Scroll Geometry (attached) is a workable Solution to a serious omission. Geometry is a precise language in-and-of-itself; it also stands to mathematical proofs. Therein is the crux of the matter, and upon which the unity of natural geometric structure & order is based – for starters! See attached! If PDF is attached improperly, please do let me know! 4-Scroll.pdf

MigL The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - 1962 Another erroneous critisim of my quotes. Everybody makes mistakes - you have made yours! How yah doing on checking my geometry?

Joigus “Trust yourself when all men doubt you yet make allowance for their doubting too.” - R Kipling I thought we left off with the Einstein quote (bone of contention) some while ago. Not that it was incorrect, but because it is not worth getting hung-up over. Consider the geometry included in the two previous PDF sent in responded to Studiot! Then tell me that my Geometric Common Denominator is incorrect… Please do think about it some first! To your Eastwood quote - “Just one more question, Pilgrim. How far up your as_ do you want my boot?” The Duke!

NTuft “Did you do this your self? I don't know it, but I think you had a computer work on re-doing Platonic solids inside of closed circles. Have to get through recent posts, apology. If I hadn't expect more from you, I might think part of your response to be a bit silly, to which I might claim that I used my little brothers etch-a-sketch! Actually, I am a seasoned independent AutoCAD architectural draftsman, “AutoCAD is an extremely accurate with the capability of 16 decimal places of precision.” I did useAutoCAD, while my knowledge of such geometry dates to years before AutoCAD's existance. If someone were to use inaccurate language regarding Building Plans & International Codes, I would understand their intended meaning, without berating them. Please do critic my more recent post, it offers plenty of material for some naysayers to make shallow remarks about it. Though I might expect better understandings of you. If not, then simply let it go! PS If I attached the PDF file incorrectly, then let me know!

Response Attached!Clouds-1.pdf

Seeing that the prevailing winds are contrary. Undaunted, I will take another tact and continue.

Studiot and/or whoever it may concern: See Attachment! Orderliness+3-NatGeo.pdf

Please excuse me! In the back & forth, I now realize I have caused a misunderstand by emphasizing the “The Problem” in two different contexts. The A.E. quote was something I came across while pouring through volumes in the SDU library some years ago, it struck me as being quite interesting, so I saved it over. I happened to use it in response to something that came up on this forum. But it was not meant to be a direct reference to the “Problem” central to my assertions concerning the lack of an expression for the origin & cause of natural geometry, which is a matter to be demonstrated as an important precursor to offering a viable Solution. And being, as I understand it, that natural geometric structure occurs simultaneously with fields of force, they are relative to one another, and if so, then to define (tangibly) the ultimate origin (which is currently absent within the established geometric body of knowledge) of natural geometry (as a matter of fact), would shed light on relationships of forces. As form & force are born together from the onset and continue to act in concert throughout the manifold… So please do let us drop the issue of “The Problem” with regards to Mr. Einstein.

Studiot I wanted to respond to your posts after having had a good look at the suggested book, and after having put together a more thoughtful response to some of your remarks. While a few of the forum members have offered posts that are worth talking into consideration, others, I would prefer to avoid their barrage of irrelevant or cynical remarks, as they only muddy the waters and are not worth fending off. The Frog, Mad Rabbit, Bandito, and Pirate, if not according to their appearances, then by the content of their remarks – what regard should one have for them? It seemed better to respond more directly to what you have pointed out. I worked on it over a couple days, realizing that a number to matters had to be touched-on & clarified before I could cut-to-the-chase about my original assertions. Now I see it needs to be further edited – more thoughtfulness & time. Also, here there are olives to harvest & set to cure. I have not walked away from replying to you, nor from stating the case. Now, I suppose it should include both some evidence of the Problem and a substantial part of the Solution, at least enough of it for you to determine if it is worth your considerations. There are graphic lead-ups and graphic proofs, apparently, they need to be converted to a PDF format! Preferably, if I could forward it to a more discreet setting - please do offer suggestions? You know what is said about the Impossible, and the virtues of Patience. I Am on It! Solomon

Studiot It was never my intention to have things go off track in the ways they have, so at this place I will round things off as best as I can. I can now see many mistakes in my approach & presentation, and I will take in the well-meant criticism as good advice and be grateful for it. At the same time nothing said has given me caused to doubt the essential validity of the said Problem & Solution related to the Cause & Origin of Matter. Though for my part, the introduced was terribly awkward – my bad! I did not manage to present and define The Problem adequately, then overwhelmed by protests, which did not allow the Solution to be ventured. So yes, nothing much was shared nor received, not much more than a hard-bitten bone of contention. Everyone gets to have their part in it all. Setting aside controversies, I do appreciate the suggested reading The Self-Made Tapestry, sounds particularly interesting. So much so that I have ordered a hard copy that should arrive for my birthday – Thank You! May I learn from and treasure it! Your remarks about Mr. Balls book, leads me believe that you know very well what natural geometry is, and in the way I use the term, i.e., “For centuries, scientists have struggled to understand the origins of the patterns and forms found in nature-from the leopard’s spots to the graceful spirals of a mollusk shell to the complex designs on a butterfly’s wing. Now, in this lucid and elegantly written book, Philip Ball applies state-of-the-art scientific understanding from the fields of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and mathematics to these ancient mysteries, revealing how nature's seemingly complex patterns originate in simple physical laws.” -- Exactly! Perhaps I can improve my English comp. while reading it, so as to better present my assertions. As there is still a nut yet to be cracked, one which is no doubt complementary to what Mr. Ball has sucessfully expounded upon. My cause is focused on the underlying origin of that which he speaks, the mostly uncharted precursor of form & dynamics... Field is a broad term. – “Among the many fields of science… natural science (noun) · natural sciences (plural noun) a branch (field) of science that deals with the physical world, e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, biology. The branch of knowledge that deals with the study of the physical world.” On the other hand, a Field as I often use that term refer to fields of influence/force, I.e., gravitational, electro-magnetic, the week force, and the strong force, etc. They are often expressed geometrically/graphically to making them more tangible & useful as theoretical models of those forces, etc. Natural structure (geometry) and dynamics act in concert, wherein the bond between natural geometry, mathematics, and physics exists as an unbroken continuum in action, as is present throughout the manifold cosmos, ect., ect... Once Again, “The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” I know there are other approaches and lots of argument to be had. Nevertheless Mr. Einstein has goes a long way to define the matter, and I find his many similar such statments to be, as the UFO guys say, highly compelling. And more than a casual interest, I delved into it with unrelenting focus, many years ago, until the Solution was rendersd fourth. I Am now comfortably retired, which affords opportunity to cultivate an acceptable presentation. With well wishes and gratitude I bid adieu, perhaps we can pick it up again when I am better prepared to discussion it and to gain from what others have to offer. I greatly value much of what you have had to offered, setting aside the less agreeable mentions. In all thank you & may God Bless! Shabbat Shalom Sincerely Solomon

Studiot Unfortunately the rest of your article starts to wander off into mystic woo, for instance trying to introduce the so called golden ratio, instead of finding out just how much more modern mathematics in general and geometry in particular has to offer. (1.) The Golden Mean / Fibonacci Series / 1/1.618… references a natural progression/proportions that are prominent featurs of a great variety of natural structures – what is so “mystic woo” about that, it is a natural fact. While there are those who regard spiritual values and who recognize the Golden Mean Series as having to do with Creator & Creation. Be that as it may, I did not come into this forum to preach the mystical, rather make an offering of truth/fact to the scientifically inclined – technically speaking. At the same time, I do not limit myself to the limitations of others. You may wish some entertaining light reading about geometry. (2.)Do you presume that I haven’t! Rather I researched it enough to know that current geometric knowledge, though it has been greatly elaborated on, the essential geometric facts were ascertained & established long ago (the geometric foundations of science). Meanewhile, none of your modern research has been able to define the underlying cause or origin of the geometric structure of nature or cosmos. That does not preclude humble me from having gained discreet understandings of such law & order, that the mainstreem accedemia is yet to be fully privy to. Both might have something "new" to learn. Try perusing The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry by David Wells. You may also like - The Self-Made Tapestry - Pattern formation in nature by Phillip Ball I think you will find many surprises in it especially as it has a similar theme to yours, but with the benefit of modern scientific observations so it represents the best of our knowledge. (3) I appreciate the suggestions and may do so! Nevertheless, I Am now long of tooth, had sever dyslexia as a youth, so that I, then & now, only delved into the things of serious interest – and I do know what I am talking about where some such things are concerned. Sort of self-taught. Is not suprising that I do not fully conform to your ivory tower intelligencia. I suggest avoiding entering a slanging match about Einstein. (4.) I know what I need to know about Mr. Einstein, and I do not need to be tutored by some arrogant joker. Although he (Einstein) may well have been the world's greatest Physicist, he was not a Mathematician and had to rely on support form for competent mathematicians. (5.) Yes, Mileva was, in some real way, a great blessing. Of course many other scientists have done great things in many other areas of science, both before, at the same time and after. (6.)Yes! They each in their own way & language (geometry, mathematics, physics, etc.) set out to comprehend and prove things pertaining to the laws, structure & unity that operates throughout nature & cosmos. Their discoveries are what the great edifice of science is made up of. One thing I picked up from your earlier postings was concsrned CONTINUITY & 'the continuum'; The theoretical nature of the continuum has, as you say, been a subject of investigation since before Greek times and has still not been settled today. (7.) That’s what I am talking about! “and has still not been settled today”. But for all current practical purposes the continuum we live in behaves observably like the one you will find in any standard textbook of continuum mechanics. Yes! It is all quite logical! (8.)??? Continuum of what? It is Dynamics in concert with Form – the laws of dynamics/physics acting in unisons with natural structure. Physics knows quite a lot about force fields such as the Four Forces, also about the natural (material world) natural geometry = natural structure – see the graphics I sent. Now where did THEY come from? Is there an underlying expression that they arose from and continues to act as a transitional geometric bond, a common denominator... Is it absurd of me to ask? It is basically the question that has been at the heart of the sciences from its inception. So is an acute understanding of continuity and the workings of the continuum something that only those who have degrees can be acquainted with.… All the books are there, and the mind that understands is not limited by the universities, rather understanding is written in the stary heavens, Nature is the great teacher – if we pay close attention, it comes through the cloud arises out of the deep grayness between our ears . There is knowledge to be had from books, moreover understanding is written throughout the living creation. (9.) But do you really think I should continue in this attempt to divulge the matter, to cast pearls before mockers & scorners… Right or wrong, what should I expect? Mockery or robbery, or both… I have learned a lesson here… Perhaps I shall peddle my wares elsewhere. What would you suggest? Sincerely Solomon

Studiot I appreciate your response and have a prepaired answer, one that I trust will simplify & clairify the entire discussaion. If it happens to not set well with you, simply say so and I will accept it as your honest observation. It is composed in MS Word with graphics included. Is there something I should know about importing it?I I imported it! Concerned about how well it survived!

Response to MigL It takes a degree of intelligence to understand a matter - a lack thereof to deliberately misunderstand it! No, you ain’t got it straight! There was a big stinking hurry for me to offer a quick & comprehensive Solution to the Origin of Matter. I thought this was a civilized forum, wherein if a topic seemed uninteresting to someone, it would be simply passed over, for the sake of someone with something worthwhile to say. Why the coming across with off-of-the-wall BS. I could go over it slowly, but that would not resolve intentional ignorance. no cigar dude! So now Einstein is a lacky, and you superior & beyond reproach. Perhaps it is jealousy or some other idiosyncrasy, ego, or failures that caused bitterness – Whatever! But I did not think this forum was a place for such cheap banter. “The Problem” by Albert Einstein: “Which are the simplest formal structures that can be attributed to a four-dimensional continuum, and which are the simplest laws that may be constructed to govern these structures. We then look for the mathematical expressions of physical fields in these formal structures and the field laws of physics already known to a certain approximation from earlier research in simplest laws governing the structures.” Why should I bother to offer a valid Solution to the Problem?