The Questions No One Should Ask

[molten_dragon]

You answers look very funny to me!

Photons do not occupy space. Can two or more photons occupy the same space simultanously?

Do your photons travel in space? Say no to this.



I will answer your questions as I need to understand the depth of your knowledge on quantum mechanics.


I can screw the logic of quantum mechanics with a very simple illustration:

Let,
A = xyz
B = yxz
C = zxy

Among A, B, and C - what is the variant and what are the invariants?
x, y, and z invariably exist in A, B, and C. So, they are the invariants.
Variant is the order in which x, y, and z exist in A, B, and C.
Therefore,
VARIANT IS THE ORDER OF INVARIANTS. This is the basic principle of quantum mechanics.
Try to discern the statement: VARIANT IS THE ORDER OF INVARIANTS. Quantum mechanics will perfectly fit into this principle.

The one unable to comprehend the above illustration can never understand the premises of quantum mechanics.

----------------------------------------------------

You have very shallow knowledge on photons.
Try reading the following:


Also reading moar physics on the wikipedia. I trust that thing. It better not phail me. Damn it, electromagnetic radiation and photons are weird. Okay, so we have photons. These cary electromagnetic radiation. Okay, so what is this? A changing magnetic field produces an electrical field. Amirite? Well, a changing electric field produces a magnetic field. OKAY. That just makes absolute perfect sense and explains everything. OR NOT! But as far as I understand this electromagnetic field - it is the space around (well, the field) things that have charges. These charges make particles behave differently. But now the radiation bit. It is a 'propagating oscillatory disturbance in the electromagnetic field'. So, the this field is being vibrating and moving along. But it is also explained as the two components oscillating at right angles (orthogonal) to each other. So an electric field is oscillating, and the magnetic field is also oscillating orthogonal to this? HUH? WTF?


I still fail to understand exactly WHAT this oscillating thing is. Okay, it would make perfect sense if it needed a medium to pass through like sound, because as far as I understand it, charged particles are needed to create the field in the first place.


But, but, but enter photons. Are photons the electromagnetic field oscillations? Well, they are some type of 'quanta'. Which are 'descrete packets of energy'. Okay, what does that mean? Like a packet of chips, but energy? It says charged particles emit photons. So, does an electromagnetic field create photons? Like out of thin air or what? Well, it goes on to say that photons excite electrons making them jump up to a higher energy level (AKA further away from the nucleus), and this makes sense from chem. And when it goes back to a normal (jumping back down in energy) it releases a photon which is the same as the energy difference. This is characteristic to a specific atom, and its why things are coloured the way they are, because the absorb a specific photon, and relsease a specific photon wavelength. Different wavelengths = different colours in visible light. Can't see x-rays, etc. These photon things also do not have a mass. Mass = how much matter in something, and matter is something that occupies space. So photons do not occupy space? But then they say that matter is a lose concept anyway. But can I fit an infinite number of photons in a cup, for example?

Now, it starts to say that electromagnetic radiation can behave like a wave or a particle! HUH? So, what I described above with the 'oscillating thing' seems to be the wave. The photons are the particles. That do not have mass. So they are there but they are not there. Bleh.

I believe my view of the world is now beginning to change, because as far as I understood it, things were made out of atoms, which are made of proton, neutron and electrons. And the fundamental force is the attraction between positive and negative. But now those things are made of smaller things, like quarks and photons. And it may be possible these things aren't actual masses, as in these things could occupy the same space and it wouldn't matter. But they don't because of forces which I do not know about. And I have now come up with Nervous_Neuron's Law: Stuff is always made out of smaller stuff. And for this to work, it would have to go around in a circle, so the biggest thing, for example, the universe IS the smallest thing, the quark (or whatever it may be). And I think I have seen that before.

Oh yes, the Simpsons.


Anyway, I think I was too focused on things being 'either/or'. It's either a 'mass of something' or its a 'disturbance of something' (AKA a particle or a wave). I still can't really picture it being another way. I still picture a photon as a ball of something. Because that's how models of particles are drawn, as little balls. But all this stuff is really theory and a model, this stuff can't be seen and it might be a different way to how we know it now. We might just all be made out of nothing.


That's enough of that before my brains explode out of my head.

So, does that mean I am creating a force that will cause my brains to accelerate against my head, causing forces of repulsion in the skull, causing it to break to pieces? What kind of a force? Is it an electromagnetic force which is creating photons from my brain to gang up on my skull laser style? OMG MAH BRAIN IS CHARGIN MAH LAZOR!!11

--------

Also read this article:

Quantum Theory and Wave/Particle Duality



--
1. Photon is energy.
2. Photon has energy.

If statement 1 is true, then one does not need a special term 'photon'. One can well use the term 'energy'. Energy has components by definition.

If statement 2 is true, then photons have components. One of the component is energy. All the other components are yet to be identified.


The correct Answer:
Surprisingly both the statements are correct!

Photon while exhibiting itself as wave, it is Energy.
Photon while exhibiting itself as particle, it has Energy.

That is the Ultimate truth, which is every thing in the Universe can suddenly disappear and manifest as energy waves, the entire cosmos will be seen as empty space. Scientists are unable to understand why this duality.


How can the one which has no component exhibit more than one property?
Correct Answer:
Sub Atomic Particle exhibits as wave property and particle property at its Will. This is mysterious!

The one who finds HOW will be Nobel prize winner!


-----
I am sorry to write in a rough tone. But, is very essential in order to establish the truth and lies of quantum mechanics.
-------

Without conflict, there would be no development!!!!

Despite your clever (and lengthy) smokescreen of insults and bull****, I couldn't help but noticing that you still haven't answered my question. I think I'll ask it again, just so you don't forget.

You continue to insist that photons are divisible. Fine, let's assume for a moment that you're correct. If photons are divisible, then they must be made of something, they must have component parts. What then, are the component parts of a photon?

Anyhow, now I understand that the article which I wrote (the OP) will fire many people.

For some reason, it's fun to argue with someone who continues to hold to their position despite being repeatedly proven wrong.

 

[exvirgin]

Despite your clever (and lengthy) smokescreen of insults and bull****, I couldn't help but noticing that you still haven't answered my question. I think I'll ask it again, just so you don't forget.

You continue to insist that photons are divisible. Fine, let's assume for a moment that you're correct. If photons are divisible, then they must be made of something, they must have component parts. What then, are the component parts of a photon?



For some reason, it's fun to argue with someone who continues to hold to their position despite being repeatedly proven wrong.

Okay, I am wrong!

Explain me,
1. Why are photons indivisible?
2. Why can't photons have more than one component?
3. Why one has to believe that photons are indivisible? Is it because some small group of quantum mechnics people said?
4. Can you scientifically prove that photons are indivisible?
5. How can one demonstrate the existence of those which has no mass and occupy no space?
6. Anything which can be defined must have definite bounds. Universals cannot be limited by a definition. I understand that photons have been projected as universals not as particulars, although it has been called as point object, quantum particle, quanta. I think quantum mechanics makes an attempt to define the universals.

7. Quantum mechanics fails to make a distinction between object and its properties. It is just reeling under the confusion of extended Russell's paradox. It puts the questions of this sort: What is the difference between me and my hand? How can one jump from earth to USA? How can one jump from the earth to India? Can you answer the questions of this sort.

8. Quantum mechanics is yet to clarify - whether a photon is an object or a property?

9. Quantum mechanics is just an ad hoc explanation made to explain some of the observations by a small group of people who know nothing other than photons.

10. How can an indivisible particle exhibit dual nature?
11. What makes the photons to move? From where it gets the force for movement?
12. Are all photons are of the same type? Why there is variation in the energy of the photons?

13. How can one demonstrate there is no empty space within the photon?

14. How can one demonstrate that has no inside and outside? Well, one can illustate the quantities. Again, mathematically, every quantity is divisible. And, zero is infinitely divisible.

------------
My simple answer to your question is teach quantum mechanics to younger minds. It will shoot you with infinite number of questions which cannot be answered with quantum mechanics. Students would tell you that the teacher is a ghost telling excellent ghost stories. I had enough of it.

Do not get the impression - students are silent - so, all of them understood.



I not only studied quantum mechanics but also taught quantum mechanics for a while. Now I strongly believe that Quantum mechanics is a very romantic 'GHOST STORY.'

Take an onion. Keep peeling it off. Finally you get quantum mechanics.

Finally, here is the answer to you question:
The components of a photon are a photino and an elastino, in turn, the components of photinos are an electrino and a positrino, while the
Source: www.springerlink.com/index/J303811021877442.pdf

It is only possible to split the polarization components of a photon when the photon is in the weird state of superposition, meaning it is
Source: http://www.debatepolitics.com/educa..../Fiber_loop_makes_quantum_memory_040903.html


For more:
[ame="http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=%22components+of+a+photon&start=20&sa=N"]403 Forbidden[/ame]

This paper will give you some thing on the components of photon:

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2003/040903/Fiber_loop_makes_quantum_memory_040903.html


Google for "photino". You will get more.

Are you convinced now that the photons have components?
If you need more scientific evidence, I will give you.

 

[molten_dragon]

Okay, I am wrong!

I'm glad you finally admit it. They say the first step in curing yourself is to admit you have a problem, so now the healing can begin.

Explain me,
1. Why are photons indivisible?
2. Why can't photons have more than one component?
3. Why one has to believe that photons are indivisible? Is it because some small group of quantum mechnics people said?
4. Can you scientifically prove that photons are indivisible?
5. How can one demonstrate the existence of those which has no mass and occupy no space?
6. Anything which can be defined must have definite bounds. Universals cannot be limited by a definition. I understand that photons have been projected as universals not as particulars, although it has been called as point object, quantum particle, quanta. I think quantum mechanics makes an attempt to define the universals.

7. Quantum mechanics fails to make a distinction between object and its properties. It is just reeling under the confusion of extended Russell's paradox. It puts the questions of this sort: What is the difference between me and my hand? How can one jump from earth to USA? How can one jump from the earth to India? Can you answer the questions of this sort.

8. Quantum mechanics is yet to clarify - whether a photon is an object or a property?

9. Quantum mechanics is just an ad hoc explanation made to explain some of the observations by a small group of people who know nothing other than photons.

10. How can an indivisible particle exhibit dual nature?
11. What makes the photons to move? From where it gets the force for movement?
12. Are all photons are of the same type? Why there is variation in the energy of the photons?

13. How can one demonstrate there is no empty space within the photon?

14. How can one demonstrate that has no inside and outside? Well, one can illustate the quantities. Again, mathematically, every quantity is divisible. And, zero is infinitely divisible.

I've answered the majority of these questions for you already. Please go back and find the answers yourself, I don't feel like answering them all a second time when you clearly weren't paying attention the first time around.

------------
My simple answer to your question is teach quantum mechanics to younger minds. It will shoot you with infinite number of questions which cannot be answered with quantum mechanics. Students would tell you that the teacher is a ghost telling excellent ghost stories. I had enough of it.

Do not get the impression - students are silent - so, all of them understood.



I not only studied quantum mechanics but also taught quantum mechanics for a while. Now I strongly believe that Quantum mechanics is a very romantic 'GHOST STORY.'

Take an onion. Keep peeling it off. Finally you get quantum mechanics.

I have trouble believing that you taught quantum mechanics. You seem to have a pretty flimsy grasp of it.

Finally, here is the answer to you question:
The components of a photon are a photino and an elastino, in turn, the components of photinos are an electrino and a positrino, while the
Source: SpringerLink Home - Main

It is only possible to split the polarization components of a photon when the photon is in the weird state of superposition, meaning it is
Source: Error 404: Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums


For more:
403 Forbidden

This paper will give you some thing on the components of photon:

Fiber loop makes quantum memory TRN 040903


Google for "photino". You will get more.

Okay, I looked into some of the things you mentioned. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but here's what I found.

A photino is a proposed superpartner to a photon. It is related to supersymmetry theory, which proposes that every boson has a partner fermion that has the same mass and internal quantum numbers and vice versa. It is very important to note 2 things. First, nowhere does supersymmetry theory state that that photons (or any other elementary particle) are made of their corresponding superpartners. Second, at the moment, there is no experimental evidence whatsoever that supersymmetry theory is even true.

When I look for information on Elastinos, I find nothing. I assume that they're mentioned in the springerlink article you put the link up to, but I'm not willing to pay 34 dollars to find out. Assuming that's where you got your information, I can tell you right now that it's crap and proves nothing for 2 important reasons.

1. The first sentence of the paper is: "In an earlier paper the authors proposed that all particles are composed of two primitive particles, namely electron neutrino and electrino..." Note the use of the word "proposed", which does not mean "proved conclusively".

2. The paper was written in 1975. This does not seem relevant at first, until you look a little deeper. One of their proposals was that "all particles are composed of two primitive particles, namely electron neutrino and electrino...". Science has since proven that electron neutrinos exist, and theorized that electrinos do (as party of supersymmetry theory), but has already disproven the fact that all particles are made of electron neutrinos. That is simply untrue. So in other words, that paper which I assume made mention of photinos and elastinos is horribly out of date. Please try using more up to date sources in the future.

Are you convinced now that the photons have components?

Far from it. I remain as convinced as ever that you have no clue what you're talking about.

If you need more scientific evidence, I will give you.

Offering to give me more scientific evidence assumes that you have given me some scientific evidence already.

 

[exvirgin]

2. The paper was written in 1975. This does not seem relevant at first, until you look a little deeper. One of their proposals was that "all particles are composed of two primitive particles, namely electron neutrino and electrino...". Science has since proven that electron neutrinos exist, and theorized that electrinos do (as party of supersymmetry theory), but has already disproven the fact that all particles are made of electron neutrinos. That is simply untrue. So in other words, that paper which I assume made mention of photinos and elastinos is horribly out of date. Please try using more up to date sources in the future.



Far from it. I remain as convinced as ever that you have no clue what you're talking about.



Offering to give me more scientific evidence assumes that you have given me some scientific evidence already.

Time will decide who is right and who is wrong. Let us discuss on the 'pros and cons' on the divisibility of photons.

Here is the link to the NASA website which tells on the divisiblity of photons:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090037673_2009038481.pdf

Here is the abstaract of the paper which has been published in August, 2009.
Do not ask me - is it reliable or outdated.

Formulations for second and higher harmonic frequency up and down conversions, as well as multi photon processes directly assume summability and divisibility of photons. Quantum mechanical (QM) interpretations are completely congruent with these assumptions. However, for linear optical phenomena (interference, diffraction, refraction, material dispersion, spectral dispersion, etc.), we have a profound dichotomy. Most optical engineers innovate and analyze all optical instruments by propagating pure classical electromagnetic (EM) fields using Maxwell s equations and gives only lip-service to the concept "indivisible light quanta". Further, irrespective of linearity or nonlinearity of the phenomena, the final results are always registered through some photo-electric or photo-chemical effects. This is mathematically well modeled by a quadratic action (energy absorption) relation. Since QM does not preclude divisibility or summability of photons in nonlinear & multi-photon effects, it cannot have any foundational reason against these same possibilities in linear optical phenomena. It implies that we must carefully revisit the fundamental roots behind all light-matter interaction processes and understand the common origin of "graininess" and "discreteness" of light energy.



Here is the another write up:
The "Planck Scale" is a "mind bogglingly" immense energy state. To invoke the Uncertainty Principle for photon decomposition into "Planck Scale" entities with fractional charges like quarks or other even more highly energetic species would result in diminishingly short times for this mechanism... they would not be able to penetrate any significant barrier we would notice in "the real world" where we see already quantum penetration being quite "significant" even in experiments such as the recent test of Hardy's Paradox. I guess it is possible that this decomposition of photons might occur "spontaneously" in the presence of some kind of special catalyst but what could this be in the QCD realm? More likely are "simple" particle and antiparticle decompositions which we can already observe even naturally as virtual particle phenomena already of the Feynman-Stueckelberg form which are far less energetic (though still "formidable"). They would be those virtual clouds of particles that surround real particles all the time... allowed to exist through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Notice these kinds of particles are more obvious in the rest frame of a central "nucleating" host particle. These lower energy particles are far more likely according to HEP as well... as illustrated in my diagram of Feynman-Stueckelberg Time travel for a simple electron which may be "catalyzed" far more easily than fractionally charged string level entities "at room temperature" in a Lab's Benchtop. I would not expect to see these "hypothetical new entities" turn up even in an accelerator a thousand times the size of the one at CERN.

---
I sincerely thank you for answering my questions.
-----

Let us discuss discuss further on the 'divisibility of photons'.

 

[molten_dragon]

Time will decide who is right and who is wrong.

Yes it will, and time up to this point has decided that I'm right and you're wrong.

Let us discuss on the 'pros and cons' on the divisibility of photons.

The physical structure of our universe isn't decided by 'pros and cons'. It is what it is. Just because a particular theory is somehow more likable or beneficial to us doesn't mean it's true.

Here is the link to the NASA website which tells on the divisiblity of photons:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090037673_2009038481.pdf

Here is the abstract of the paper which has been published in August, 2009.
Do not ask me - is it reliable or outdated.

Formulations for second and higher harmonic frequency up and down conversions, as well as multi photon processes directly assume summability and divisibility of photons. Quantum mechanical (QM) interpretations are completely congruent with these assumptions. However, for linear optical phenomena (interference, diffraction, refraction, material dispersion, spectral dispersion, etc.), we have a profound dichotomy. Most optical engineers innovate and analyze all optical instruments by propagating pure classical electromagnetic (EM) fields using Maxwell s equations and gives only lip-service to the concept "indivisible light quanta". Further, irrespective of linearity or nonlinearity of the phenomena, the final results are always registered through some photo-electric or photo-chemical effects. This is mathematically well modeled by a quadratic action (energy absorption) relation. Since QM does not preclude divisibility or summability of photons in nonlinear & multi-photon effects, it cannot have any foundational reason against these same possibilities in linear optical phenomena. It implies that we must carefully revisit the fundamental roots behind all light-matter interaction processes and understand the common origin of "graininess" and "discreteness" of light energy.



Here is the another write up:
The "Planck Scale" is a "mind bogglingly" immense energy state. To invoke the Uncertainty Principle for photon decomposition into "Planck Scale" entities with fractional charges like quarks or other even more highly energetic species would result in diminishingly short times for this mechanism... they would not be able to penetrate any significant barrier we would notice in "the real world" where we see already quantum penetration being quite "significant" even in experiments such as the recent test of Hardy's Paradox. I guess it is possible that this decomposition of photons might occur "spontaneously" in the presence of some kind of special catalyst but what could this be in the QCD realm? More likely are "simple" particle and antiparticle decompositions which we can already observe even naturally as virtual particle phenomena already of the Feynman-Stueckelberg form which are far less energetic (though still "formidable"). They would be those virtual clouds of particles that surround real particles all the time... allowed to exist through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Notice these kinds of particles are more obvious in the rest frame of a central "nucleating" host particle. These lower energy particles are far more likely according to HEP as well... as illustrated in my diagram of Feynman-Stueckelberg Time travel for a simple electron which may be "catalyzed" far more easily than fractionally charged string level entities "at room temperature" in a Lab's Benchtop. I would not expect to see these "hypothetical new entities" turn up even in an accelerator a thousand times the size of the one at CERN.

---
I sincerely thank you for answering my questions.
-----

Let us discuss discuss further on the 'divisibility of photons'.

Those articles are all well and good, but they're all 'what ifs' and assumptions. They're interesting theories, but there's nothing (yet) to back them up. One of these days, someone may actually prove that that is indeed how the universe works. Until then, I'm sticking with things that have some data behind them.

 

[reefedjib]

Is this bull**** thread still going? Damn.

 

[exvirgin]

Those articles are all well and good, but they're all 'what ifs' and assumptions. They're interesting theories, but there's nothing (yet) to back them up. One of these days, someone may actually prove that that is indeed how the universe works. Until then, I'm sticking with things that have some data behind them.

So, according to you quantum mechanics is not a theory!!! Wow


Will you deny the content of those articles? "Divisibility of photons"


There is a class of properties called as "indestructible properties". Try reading that. It will give you a very deeper insight into science!!!!

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by exvirgin
Explain me,
1. Why are photons indivisible?

Why is there no divisibilty of photons? Quantization. It is one of the fundamental aspects of Plancks Law.

Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
http://www.arthurjaffe.com/Assets/pdf/IntroQFT.pdf


Basic Properties of Photons
According to the photon theory of light, photons . . .
move at a constant velocity, c = 2.9979 x 108 m/s (i.e. "the speed of light"), in free space

have zero mass and rest energy.

carry energy and momentum, which are also related to the frequency nu and wavelength lamdba of the electromagnetic wave by E = h nu and p = h / lambda.

can be destroyed/created when radiation is absorbed/emitted.

can have particle-like interactions (i.e. collisions) with electrons and other particles, such as in the Compton effect.

Photon - What is a photon?

 

[molten_dragon]

So, according to you quantum mechanics is not a theory!!! Wow


Will you deny the content of those articles? "Divisibility of photons"


There is a class of properties called as "indestructible properties". Try reading that. It will give you a very deeper insight into science!!!!

Quantum Mechanics is a theory. I never said it wasn't. The difference is, that unlike your theories, there's a lot of scientific evidence and experimentation supporting the fact that quantum mechanics is true.

 

[exvirgin]

Quantum Mechanics is a theory. I never said it wasn't. The difference is, that unlike your theories, there's a lot of scientific evidence and experimentation supporting the fact that quantum mechanics is true.

No model is perfect. No model or theory can be 100% true. Any model which is error free must be the thing the model represents. Therefore, quantum mechanics cannot be error free.


Well, there are contradictory observations. Hope you know the wave mechanics!

Anyhow,
let us talk on the divsibility of photons.

Could you prepare and list of all possible values of photonic energies? What is the minimal possoble energy of any photon? What is the maximum energy a photon can have?

Try preparing, it will lead you to some wilder confusion!

 

[gabehwkns]

Are you absolutely SURE you're an ex-virgin? :lol:

:rofl hilarious

 

[gabehwkns]

I wouldn't mind debating about it, if I understood it.

I agree, I think it needs a little clarification.

 

[molten_dragon]

No model is perfect. No model or theory can be 100% true. Any model which is error free must be the thing the model represents. Therefore, quantum mechanics cannot be error free.


Well, there are contradictory observations. Hope you know the wave mechanics!

Anyhow,
let us talk on the divsibility of photons.

Could you prepare and list of all possible values of photonic energies? What is the minimal possoble energy of any photon? What is the maximum energy a photon can have?

Try preparing, it will lead you to some wilder confusion!

Nope, I'm finally tired of leading the horse to water. I'm letting the poor beast die of dehydration.

 

[exvirgin]

Nope, I'm finally tired of leading the horse to water. I'm letting the poor beast die of dehydration.

You mean quantum mechanics is a perfect model which represents the reality! Wow

What are the criteria to distinguish things from their properties?

 

[exvirgin]

The ultimate rule:

Anything which is indistinguishable from its properties cannot be analyzed.

How can one make a distinction between a photon and its properties?
God only knows!
So do the quantum mechanics................................

 

[Sov]

No debate on this topic?

Would you be willing to do me if I answered all the questions?

 

[exvirgin]

Would you be willing to do me if I answered all the questions?

Yes, I would

Answer them

 

[exvirgin]

Would you be willing to do me if I answered all the questions?

Don't run away from the challenges!

 

[exvirgin]

Why did the evolution of proteogenic amino acids stop after 20 in number? Why no has new proteogenic amino acid been evolved?

We have been informed that several new proetins evolve each day. But, what about the evolution of amino acids?



This question has been posted in philosophy section in order initiate awarness regarding the contradictions in the theories of molecular evolution.


Why did the evolution of nucleotides stop after 4 in number? Why has no new NTPs or dNTPs which are parts of DNA or RNA?

 

[exvirgin]

Good evening,
I have a question for you.


Is evolution a continuous process?
If evolution is a continuous process, why do we see the same 20 proteogenic amino acids in all organisms? Why do we see the same A, T, G and C in DNA of all organisms? Why do we see the same A, T, G and U in RNA of all organisms? Why there is no evolution in proteogenic amino acids and why there is no evolution in the nucleotide residues which can be the parts of DNA/RNA?

If you do not know the exact answer, forward this to your friends and professors.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Is it possible to affect personal or total causality through the personal actions?

Is this true for everyone and only notable by the auspicious (which I assume)
Or only true for a few?

 

[First Thought]

Blame your educators, not th public, for keeping you ignorant of these fundamental questions and facts.

 What cannot exhibit divisibility?
 What cannot exhibit comparability?
 What cannot exhibit connectivity?
 What cannot exhibit disturbability?
 What cannot exhibit reorderability?
 What cannot exhibit substituability?
 What cannot exhibit satisfiability?

Either you must pretend to be educated or cheated the education system, if you cannot understand these questions!!!!!

Your pseudo-intellectual post contains a logical fallacy, the false dichotomy. I find this very amusing. :mrgreen:

 

[Skateguy]

Well no wonder I have such a hard time doing my books---I'm just dumb. :mrgreen:

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

No one can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. So, people must be educated not to ask questions in this connection in order to make them slaves who obediently follow the directives of academic authorities.

 Can a thing which cannot exhibit divisibility be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit comparability be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit connectivity be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit disturbability be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit reorderability be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit substituability be made?
 Can a thing which cannot exhibit satisfiability be made?

Divisibility is the property without which no one can either be a part or be a whole. Comparability is the property without which no one can either be an equivalence or be a difference. Connectivity is the property without which no one can either be a link or be a limit. Disturbability is the property without which no one can either be a influence or be a sensation. Reorderability is the property without which no one can either be an origin or be a derivative. Substitutability is the property without which no one can either be a constituent or be a substituent. Satisfiability is the property without which no one can either be a requirement or a fulfillment.

 What cannot exhibit divisibility?
 What cannot exhibit comparability?
 What cannot exhibit connectivity?
 What cannot exhibit disturbability?
 What cannot exhibit reorderability?
 What cannot exhibit substituability?
 What cannot exhibit satisfiability?

No one should ask the above questions because it will expose the repetitions and reproductions in the ‘much celebrated’ human knowledge acquired through the greatest efforts and difficulties by the highly educated minds.

 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit divisibility?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit comparability?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit connectivity?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit disturbability?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit reorderability?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit substituability?
 What would not happen if no thing could exhibit satisfiability?

Everyone and everything can exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability. Everyone who could not identify these properties would have no knowledge on the properties of things. Why can't one make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability?

None of the preceding questions can be justifiably answered without exhaustively analyzing the human knowledge. The educational system does not want people to have knowledge on the ‘knowledge which no one can have’. These open ended questions can prepare and set the student minds to acquire, analyze, integrate and articulate the knowledge on diverse things.
No one except the intellects can have the knowledge to make a thing which cannot exhibit: 1. divisibility 2. comparability 3. connectivity 4. disturbability 5. reorderability 6. substituability and 7. satisfiability.


More at: http://the.secret.angelfire.com/intelligence.pdf

No.


....

 

[Rokkitsci]

I don't understand any of her posts.

Maybe I am not as smart as I thought I was?????:3oops: