Whereas you simply speak from the horse's rear without understanding the technicalities.
It is not a fact, it's merely your supposition.
That is not a tetrahedron.
You need FOUR points to define a tetrahedron.
There's two suppositions in that sentence: you're assuming a tetrahedron and you're assuming god exists.
And you remain clueless. It is not racial discrimination to point out that your nonsensical assertions are, in fact, nonsensical.
Yet one more (false) assumption on your part.
Spidergoat, I don't even know how to look that up :shrug:, so I hope you will provide the translation.
Anita, I have to say I'm not reading any of the posts very carefully but it is hard not to notice that this is a hot thread. I see that talk about geometric forms, especially the tetrahedron. Take a minute and give me an idea of how you employ those very basic forms to the primordial language. How do the forms come into play in the path to understanding the divine intention in the letters?
No, I am not 'talking from the horses rear', what I have said is correct. An edge, in any surface formed of polygons, is defined as the line where two different polygons meet (I am willing to make this more specific if you wish). You claimed that it follows that because two faces meet at an edge then there are 5 Platonic solids. This is not true. You cannot derive from that statement alone that only 5 such solids exist. Yes, it is required in order to do the work required to prove 5 such solids but you need other things, not least a basic understanding of spherical geometry. The fact different geometries, which include the definition of an edge being where two faces meet, do not result in only 5 regular tessellations of the kind seen in Platonic solids demonstrates your claim is wrong.
This isn't true. The natural world is examined in the sciences of chemistry, biology and physics. Trippy is a chemist and disagrees with you. I'm a physicist and I disagree with you. You are telling us things about our areas of (bordering on) expert knowledge when you know nothing of said areas other than what Google finds for you. I don't deny that the geometry of tetrahedral structures does come up a lot in nature and is used a lot in mathematical modelling of nature but that doesn't make them somehow 'the very basis of original form'.
So you think that because people who haven't studied science might not understand the details its okay for you to essentially lie and to then continue lying when faced with people who know more than 'your average day person'. I understand that sometimes its easier to skim the details of something when talking to someone who doesn't know much about a topic but you're arguing about science with scientists. I am certain Trippy (and plenty of others, including myself) has simplified things for you because you obviously do not have a beyond layperson's understanding of science. In fact you're worse, you are wilfully ignoring science in order to avoid a clash with your acceptance of a particular holy book. If you know more science than you've thus far displayed demonstrate it, don't hold back. You're talking to people with beyond high school education in science and if you know the technical details you should not need to gloss over them on our account. If you continue to post as you do you will only continue to affirm people's view that you don't know even high school science.
AlphaNumeric, Trippy and to who ever else that might be lurking,
Yes but, but, but as you all say - speaking from the horses rear in technicalities!
Yes, yes, yes I understand where all of you are coming from and what you are saying, but the fact still remains that the Tetrahedron is at the very basis of original form. We also witness this throughout all the natural world. Your average day person does not understand your technicalities Trippy… that is why it is always better to simplify things for the conceptual understanding of the masses, which are best demonstrated through pictures.
Here you can see below that the “atom” also has the tell tail signs of the Tetrahedron form:
Have a look at what I am saying here by these pictures:
Three quarks make up each proton and each neutron. Protons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom.
Was your claim not that all languages are derived from this "divine" original?
Wrong again. Your knowledge of that language (as a speaker) is not in doubt (so far), but your "knowledge" of its origins and relationship to other languages is not only in doubt but has already been shown to be erroneous.
Oops, you assume I hate. Not true.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/knock+off
Since I'm far from stupid I'll accept arrogant. However it's an earned arrogance, especially when I come up against such as you: I know what I'm talking about, you simply make things up to support your belief.
I'll stop responding to your posts once (if ever) you stop posting arrant and specious nonsense.
As said: not until you stop posting nonsense. It's a public forum, anyone is as free to post as anyone else.
Please learn the difference between pointing out that you are (grossly) in error and actually hating you. For the record I don't hate you (or even your "ideas": it simply saddens me that someone, anyone, could be so far of the track and not realise it).
List one unfounded "stupidity remark" against the religion that I have made. (Or is this going to be yet one more false claim?)
Mainly because you called upon science, and claim to be using science, to "prove" the bible.
Wrong again: when you invoke science (incorrectly at every turn as you do) then it deserves to be pointed out that you actually are incorrect.
Still ignoring counter points then?
Quarks are not atoms.
Protons are not atoms.
Neutrons are not atoms.
They are subatomic particles.
They don't even 'look' like what's in that picture, it's just a stylized representation to make understanding them a little easier.
One more time:
It's to point out that YOU are "opinionated" incorrectly.
But unlike God there's evidence his mother exists.
That's the spirit! When you don't like what people say, don't listen! I guess that's why the person who started the crack pot right wing bigoted ignorance that is Conservapedia is also responsible for a recent surge in home schooling in the US. Don't like evolution? Prefer creationism? Can't justify your point of view via scientific methodology? Then home school your kids! That way you get to pass on your ignorance!
I do not for one nanosecond believe what you just said. I don't think you know any science or mathematics. Do you think you know enough to pass final year undergraduate exams in any area you've talked about, like chemistry, physics or mathematics?
Bullshit. Talking technicalities is easier and quicker as you can convey precise meanings to people who understand the details in a quick manner. This is obvious given the fact experts use technical jargon as its the most efficient and clear way to convey ideas to one another. For instance, if I say "M is Calabi-Yau" to a string theorist they know that M is 2n dimensional complex manifold which has a closed Kahler form, is Ricci flat and has SU(n) holonomy. Much quicker! If I had to explain it to a lay person I'd have to give that longer definition and then define all the other terminology I used, like 'closed', 'Kahler form', 'Ricci flat', 'SU(n)', 'holonomy'. Before you know it what was 4 words is a page. Then 10 pages, then 50 pages, then an entire mathematics degree and masters. That is how much longer correctly conveying information to laypeople takes than to other well educated specialists.
You're deluding yourself. You haven't shown any understanding even expected of high school students. Why should anyone believe you can see 'the whole picture' when you can't grasp the details?
Except a tetrahedron has 4 vertices, not 3, so quarks can't form such a shape. You have taken a dumbed down simplified picture of an area of physics you don't know anything about and made a very tenuous analogy which isn't even correct in your simplified case!
