| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Douglas Eagleson" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2005 04:50:28 PM |
| Object: |
A Set of Space is Well Defined- now. |
A totaly trival theory.
A match box has the top and the sides and the ends. And is filled with
stick matches.
A sliding opens the box and opens the set. A set of close spaces. And
to allow the opening without surface defining is the mistake of many
theorists.
A surface to hold matches is to never have the altered definition,
least invalidity interfere. And so the means of closing appears
forever to be defined.
And the interaction to close is the meaning of profound desire to type
interaction itself. No other reason exists for all interaction's
division, to many.
And so the cause of division's necessity is to be the interpetation. A
physical necessity and not mathematical elegance.
A set of matches is to define all interaction unless this dilemma of
set theory is otherwise solvable.
A simple theory of set closure was stated and the implication is real
and instructive. Invalidity causes the standard model to fail.
A set of the closed space for all interaction is the only valid set in
physicial theory.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaitherbsurg, MD USa
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Set of Space is Well Defined- now. |
01 Oct 2005 05:24:59 PM |
|
|
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
[snip crap]
A surface to hold matches is to never have the altered definition,
least invalidity interfere. And so the means of closing appears
forever to be defined.
[snip more crap]
A set of matches is to define all interaction unless this dilemma of
set theory is otherwise solvable.
[snip rest of crap]
Douglas Eagleson
Flush.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A Set of Space is Well Defined- now. |
01 Oct 2005 07:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:24:59 -0700
<433F0CBB.7E178FF9@hate.spam.net>:
Douglas Eagleson wrote:
[snip crap]
A surface to hold matches is to never have the altered definition,
least invalidity interfere. And so the means of closing appears
forever to be defined.
[snip more crap]
A set of matches is to define all interaction unless this dilemma of
set theory is otherwise solvable.
[snip rest of crap]
Douglas Eagleson
Flush.
More like a full house, methinks. I won't say with what. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
