What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what about before OUR existence,there is no thought,just substance!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is where you get off the train from lack of understanding. All substance as you refer to...... is thought. Let me repeat that

---

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ALL ......................SUBSTANCE..................IS.................THOUGHT. Let me give you an idea of what all means in terms of substance - A peach, basketball, spit, airplane, planet, sun, galaxy, atom, electron, photon, garbage, Epson stylus photo printer R200, people, ants, booze, popsicle stick.
I will also repeat this again - Reality is not physical.......it is conceptual. A form of nothing will have no physical characteristics, and all forms of nothing must interact by conceptual means as the only possibility.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

---

Spacetime is a form of nothing, and no form is possible in the infinite sense of dimension.

---

why not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Because no form is possible without having an exterior to it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what about before OUR existence,there is no thought,just substance!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is where you get off the train from lack of understanding. All substance as you refer to...... is thought. Let me repeat that

---

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ALL ......................SUBSTANCE..................IS.................THOUGHT. Let me give you an idea of what all means in terms of substance - A peach, basketball, spit, airplane, planet, sun, galaxy, atom, electron, photon, garbage, Epson stylus photo printer R200, people, ants, booze, popsicle stick.
I will also repeat this again - Reality is not physical.......it is conceptual. A form of nothing will have no physical characteristics, and all forms of nothing must interact by conceptual means as the only possibility.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:

like i said what about <b>BEFORE</b> thought?!!

---

Spacetime is a form of nothing, and no form is possible in the infinite sense of dimension.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

the form of nothing is the purist form of infinite, since it can not even change as substance can,the definition of nothing <b>NO</b> space,time,or dimension can never change,once it does it is no longer nothing.

---

why not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Because no form is possible without having an exterior to it.

sure forms can(mathematics) but not necessarily in reality just in the mind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
like i said what about BEFORE thought?!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As I have said before ..................undefinable.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
like i said what about BEFORE thought?!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As I have said before ..................undefinable.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

sure it's definable,before thought, is substance.(galaxies,stars,planets,moons etc.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>

...I am prepared to fix, change, or abandon MM in a heartbeat if anything specific can be found wrong with it as it stands... -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For example, eternal absorption of gravitons would result in some planets and stars containing a high proportion of this graviton "stuff". You need just the right balance of absorption and scattering for the graviton model to work as Slabinski has showed.

As a matter of fact, since MM postulates a quasi-static universe model, this graviton "stuff" should be all over the place, like inert matter. It's not, and therefore the model must be abandoned.

Alternatively, you must provide a chemistry of reactions that alter chemical compositions due to graviton absorptions. The burden of proof is on you.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by makis</i>
<br />eternal absorption of gravitons would result in some planets and stars containing a high proportion of this graviton "stuff". You need just the right balance of absorption and scattering for the graviton model to work as Slabinski has showed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your claims are inconsistent with MM, as those who have read the model know. See for example metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/meta_cycle.asp
which explains why mass, energy, momentum, and entropy are all conserved in MM. There is nothing about MM that requires "just the right balance" of anything. Any of the parameters in the Slabinski paper, including the absorption/scattering ratio, can take on any value in a huge range.

But you did not pose these matters as questions. You posed them as put-downs, as if you are trolling. While the number of such false put-downs you can make is unlimited, my willingness to respond is limited. If you have questions that might be of broader interest, feel free to ask. If you only wish to troll, take it to some other board. -|Tom|-