Re: Supernova's Aura and Dark Matter and Energy

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:22:05 +0000 (UTC)

"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:wsNNd.24607$C24.19746@attbi_s52...
>
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cu81k6$8va$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:1EJNd.54903$eT5.44844@attbi_s51...
> >> Some people here know about my references to the aura spotted
by
> >> astronomers 70,000 light years away using the Hubble telescope.
They
> > took
> >> pictures of it and those pictures ended up on Space.com's website
> > about a
> >> year ago.
> >>
> >> The aura is practically is observed in practically two
dimensions
> > of it, a
> >> circle with left, right, up and down of a two-dimensional ring
but
> > no back
> >> and forth to the aura visible whatsoever, which would should
> > complete the
> >> three-dimensionality of that supernova's aura but is not there at
> > all. There
> >> is no frontage of that aura toward us, nor is there any back to
that
> > aura
> >> away from us on the other side of the virtually two dimensional
> > circle of it
> >> (left, right, up, down, of a 2-dimensional circle) which is all
we
> > have
> >> observed of it.
> >
> > Why did it take so many words to say that, as would be expected,
it
> > was a flat two-dimensional image?
> > Or did you express yourself so poorly that I missed your point?
> >>
> >> I don't have a computer program to do this but in my mind's eye
I
> > drew a
> >> simple diamond shape square
> >
> > The word you need is "rhombus"
> >
> >> using a computer aided design program and inlaid
> >> it into a circle where all four points are points on the circle.
> >
> > It is imposible for a rhombus to do that, unless it is a square.
> >
> > It gave me so much excruciating pain to try and follow your awful
> > circumlocutions that I gave up and snipped instead.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Franz
> >
>
> Which shows how impossible it is for you to think 3-, much less
4-, time
> dimensionally (alternatively, space dimensionally). You, among so
many
> others, vanish into the woodwork of a declining civilization in that
respect
> though.
>
> There is no mass, nor energy, to a flat 2-dimensional. There is
little
> mass, little energy, to a nearly 2-dimensional flatness. Where is
all the
> matter, all the energy, missing that should be there from a "flat"
universe?
> It should not be there since there is no matter, no energy,
whatsoever to a
> [fully] zero volume, [fully] 2-dimensional, anything. And no such
thing as
> 3-, much less 4-, dimensionality can be observed at any distance by
any
> observer where the speed of limitation isn't indistinguishable from
zero.
> Those added dimensions must be perceived, then possibly displayed in
some
> hologramic, or holographic, form.
>
> Your x, y, z, t, 4-dimensionality is entirely 2-dimensional. Your
x(),
> y(), z(), t(), 4-dimensionality is simply flatly entropic
projection, pure
> persistence, in the wholly 2-dimensional. Never once do you reach
> 3-dimensional geometry, much less 4-dimensional geometry. And such a
> constant mental environment reduces you, reduces your thinking,
reduces your
> minds, to 2-dimensional at best.
>
> What is the bitter pill for me is that I can follow, I can
visualize, what
> you see, what you are--and what you are doing--but you can never
reach up to
> any really higher (greater) dimensional thought processes and
processing,
> thus never reaching up to any really higher (greater) dimensional
> realization. Just the fact that I can see what is the matter, the
> fundamental problem, means that I'm inherently looking at it from
the
> perspective of already being a 4-dimensional observer and thinker
instead of
> 2-.
>
> Now reduce to 1-dimensional being and say "bull***!" or "idiot!"
or utter
> some foul one syllable words.

Composted Horse manure

Franz

Quantcast