JackMuChabas

I think so, but perhaps we do not have enough gravity to form a highly ordered universe.

Perhaps I am engaging in semantics, I understand your argument, but unless a problem can be calculated to infinitum what real purpose does is have?

You didn't have a choice asking if I thought Arms dealers, Al quaeda, Saudia Arabia and our highest office are all the same people!

I think string theory is just a theory and will not make it past the litmus test.

I believe if there are middles of galaxies then the same should hold true for the universe given equilibrium of sorts.

True. I believe then infinity sign = unknown.

Yes. I will have this deleted immediatlely. I apologize. Hmmm. Too much screwin' around with the old wacky tobacco. Maybe I should ask a question. If light doesn't have mass then how can it exist?

You are correct. Forever means a beginning. I think I had it backwards. Good call. I do not belive in infinite numbers because I feel they have no useful quanitities. Since they have no quantity at all. Postulating the size of the universe is one since a person cannot truely know the it's size or even the theories behind it's conception.

I know that does not make any sense. Sorry for posting gibberish. I will make sense from now on . I hope. Stoned posting format disembarked for now. Sorry for the ravings. I will erase most of them.

...properly. A light quanta a is the sum of it's energy and the sum of it's wavelength also. They cannot be medianed nor can they be averaged. I am going to use made up word since I feel no of the words in calculus suffice. What I am saying is. In a quantuum effect field given a diastatic-overturing faction given it's manner and poloar weight given a time index given a saturation given a force given a hex diagonal loop quantity given a weight of time against a given of nomenclature not known at this time to you because the nomenclature is my own concoction given it's purpose to explain quantuum theory and given it's ability to demaster the calculus false postives. a=a(b*b)*(b+2)*(b+1)*a^11 given a transferrance that has been annihilated by a given particle a=a(b*2(b*3)(b*5)(b*6)(b*7)(b*8)(b*9)(b*10)(b*11)(b*12) given a annihilated particle stream on a quantrained not deficient not assembled not given to the future participle either. This is a nomenclature I would like to upload to the forum. I will write it out then scan my theories into the pages of the forum for your examination so I can be peer reviewed. Please to baste me and waste me if you would like. I know all scientists use calculus but not all are satisfied with it's nomenclature.

Iron cores in a sun is not possible but only after a supernova. Too stable to burn and would disaffect other molecules to compose in stable molecules.

I disagree. You use calculus which completely wrong because it's nomenclature cannot quantify quantuum theory correctly given it's latent and unherent somages.

No es Vato pero un sauve Pachuco. Pachuco de los criminales del feugos de corazones. Yes there exact middle is the exact middle is the exact middle is the exact not middle is not the exact not middle exactly.

That made perfect sense to me. I speak English fluently and no Portugeuse is my first language not counting the superunknown dissected bimodel interference love bomb. Yes I speak in riddles.

The loophole you are referring to in the uncertainty principle is on that exceeds our understanding since the uncertainty principle is not a certain thing in itself. In other words. a(a)[b+1]=a(b)[c+2]