Re: Cold Fusion
From: Prai Jei (pvstownsend_at_zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk)
Date: 07/25/04
- Next message: Mitch Harris: "Re: "Embedded" in the plane."
- Previous message: Zbigniew Fiedorowicz: "Re: Disproofs of Riemann Hypothesis"
- In reply to: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Next in thread: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:24:48 +0100
Tom Potter (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<2mh10hFmqubbU8@uni-berlin.de>:
> [Snip all except Nos. 1 and 2 from each list]
> Imagine a hierarchy of objects as follows:
> 1. Null
> 2. Particle
>
> And next imagine a field associated with each
> object hierarchy has an intensity that is a function of the
> number of the contiguous objects in that class.
> 1. F(0) - Null ( Space field "1" )
> 2. F(1) - Particle ( Weak force field )
>
> And next imagine that other objects
> of the same class are affected by this field,
> and have a physical property "P(N)".
> 1. P(0) - Null ( Distance "Space^0 and space^5" )
> 2. P(1) - Particle ( Unnamed weak force property)
>
How certain are you that your No. 2's are the immediate next level above
your No. 1's?
It's one of my pet hypotheses that between Null (whatever you conceive that
to be) and any named concrete level, there is an infinite hierarchy of
levels in between.
-- Paul Townsend I put it down there, and when I went back to it, there it was GONE! Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply
- Next message: Mitch Harris: "Re: "Embedded" in the plane."
- Previous message: Zbigniew Fiedorowicz: "Re: Disproofs of Riemann Hypothesis"
- In reply to: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Next in thread: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Cold Fusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|