2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

Dear Sir,

The opinions of Dr. Cosmic Ray is very interesting - specifically: "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." So we reply from that perspective.

What is dimension? How is it different from direction? Can there be angles involving more than 360 degrees? These questions must be precisely and scientifically answered before we proceed further.

Dimension is the cause for differentiation between or different perception of internal and external structures of all objects. Whatever is confined by the dimension are internal and anything beyond it is external to the object. It has nothing to do with position, which is related to external objects only. An object can be placed anywhere with reference to another object, but it does not affect its dimension, as long as the structure is preserved. This is the reason why the term is applicable only to fixed structure objects, i.e., solids.

Direction is related to the interval and the order of arrangement of both external objects and internal components. The interval between two objects may not describe the true position or the order of arrangement an object with reference to another, as there are innumerable ways of arranging two objects with a fixed interval. The spatial interval between two objects may not be their true interval like on a geodesic. This necessitates the use of direction or sequentially differentiated spatial coordinates.

Besides the order of arrangement, the different forces act differently on objects. For example, the strong force always confines or contracts, i.e., moves from the boundary to the center of mass. The electromagnetic force always stretches, i.e., moves from higher concentration to lower concentration, i.e., from center to periphery. The weak force always permits the particles to "slide" over to couple with another. The radioactive disintegration always increases the distance between original objects, i.e., expands. Since the forces are perceptible only from the effect of their interaction with objects, by watching their direction of motion, we can determine their nature.

The space around us has been divided into 360 segments, which is the whole number mean between the solar year in days (366) and lunar year in days (354). Thus, the circle is said to have 360 degrees, which points to specific directions and its infinite projections in a discrete manner. Thus, there cannot be more than 360 degrees. What is meant by say 1080 degrees is that the particle moves thrice in circles that are not closed, but spirals. But then this is a wrong description, because the idea was derived from the motion of Earth around Sun, which is actually circular, but since the center (Sun) is moving, appears elliptical, though the ellipse is actually not closing on itself, but spirals. Since in the case of the Earth we do not use higher than 360 degrees, there is no reason to impose these unnatural descriptions in physics.

The Kaluza-Klein compactification and other "theories" relating to extra-dimensions are only figments of imagination. The term dimension is applied to solids that have fixed spread in a given direction based on their internal arrangement independent of external factors. For perception of the spread of the object, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the object must interact with that of our eyes. Since electric and magnetic fields move perpendicular to each other and both are perpendicular to the direction of motion, we can perceive the spread only in these three directions. Measuring the spread is essentially measuring the space occupied by it. This measurement can be done only with reference to some external frame of reference. For the above reason, we use axes that are perpendicular to each other and term these as x-y-z coordinates (length-breadth-height). These are not absolute terms, but are related to the order of placement of the object in the coordinate system of the field in which the object is placed. Thus, they remain invariant under mutual transformation. If we rotate the object so that x-axis changes to y-axis or z-axis, there is no effect on the structure (spread) of the object. Based on the positive and negative (spreading out and contracting in) directions from the origin, these describe six unique positions (x,0,0), (-x,0,0), (0,y,0), (0,-y,0), (0,0,z), (0,0,-z), that remain invariant under mutual transformation. Besides these, there are four more unique positions, namely (x, y), (-x, y), (-x, -y) and (x, -y) where x = y for any value of x and y, which also remain invariant under mutual transformation. These are the ten dimensions and not the so-called mathematical structures.

Randall-Sundrum "braneworld" hypothesis in which the observable universe is housed within a three-dimensional membrane, or brane, that is itself floating in a warped, higher-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, called the bulk is only figments of imagination without any tangible proof to support these views. The same is true for holons. Data from LHC has proved super-symmetric and brane-world models are wrong. It is high time scientists come out of the mania of chasing a mirage and start re-writing a new physics based on the data available at present. We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the "creation event" to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Dr. Cosmic Ray has opined earlier in this thread "Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics)." Thereby he distinguished philosophy from Natural Philosophy. We meant that only. You will find in all our responses that we use rigorous logic and Natural Philosophy ONLY. Can it be said about all others?

Had you read our post dated Mar.22, you would have responded differently. Since you did not read it earlier, we are reproducing it for you.

We have declared that we are an amateur. Thus, it is not surprising that we do not understand much. However, because of the same reason, we are free from many cultural shackles that affect modern science. May be we are wrong, but it appears to us as if you are contradicting yourself.

First let us examine your assumptions. If you can't rationalize something, you "assume the problem is with me not the theory." We think this is equally bad as assuming the theory is wrong. You must visit the root of the issue and identify the contradictions. We go about it in 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Then we proceed to examine the validity of the postulate in another 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Ultimately, if it is proved, we accept the proof or else leave it as unsolved.

How can you: "ensure I fully understand and looks at different viewpoints and connections before rejecting anything." There may be other viewpoints and connections.

It is good to "head straight for the apparent clashes, anomalies and problem areas". But this should not mean "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." If you go through our comments under various threads, you will see that we have confronted a large number of paradoxes and solved each and every one. But we do not claim that "paradoxes are my life blood". This has a negative connotation. We will give one example from aerodynamics.

When the planes faster than mach 1 were being developed, an infinity appeared in aerodynamic formulas, when the velocity of a body approached the velocity of sound in the medium where the body moved. The resistance of the medium to such motion turned out to be infinite. This would mean that supersonic motion would be impossible. But when the experiment showed otherwise, the issue was analyzed afresh. It was found that the aerodynamic formulas described the resistance in a continuous medium, without considering any abrupt jumps in density and pressure (you will be interested because we are talking about discrete space). However, the transition from subsonic to supersonic motion is associated with violating this condition. A shock wave (bow-shock that interests you) appears in the medium in front of the body thereby causing a jump in density and pressure of the medium in front of the wave. When the formulas were reviewed to include discontinuity of the medium, the infinity disappeared from the formula and the correct and finite values were returned.

This shows that whenever infinity appears in a formula, it points to either some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon. Thus, the mechanisms of renormalization or the brute force approach used by physicists are wrong. Yet, no one is going to admit or abandon it. The same is true for singularity. As long as you clutch to Relativity, you will continue with this mistake. Thankfully, we ignore Relativity, hence do not commit this mistake.

You "believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level". But how do you know what is the correct level? Scientists world over are saying for decades that Standard Model, SUSY and Higgs boson are correct models. How long we can continue to waste public money in such fanciful ideas?

We agree that Nature is the final arbiter. Hence we have derived all our theories from verifiable natural phenomena. You might have noticed we have not used any exotic mathematics or complex numbers in any of our formulations. All our definitions are precise and natural. We do not look for anomalies, we look for solutions.

Regarding "ONE 'bigger frame of reference' and they are not 'linked'," kindly read our reply again. Measurement is comparison between similars. We have given the Eddington's example earlier to show that you must move with the object to be measured at the same velocity. If you compare the result with another motion in a frame of reference not connected to your frame of reference, your result will be wrong. Kindly read it again carefully.

Regarding your bus example, we have read it earlier and in the above post written that "It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups)." You have quoted us telling that different forces co-exist. You are describing the same with one example. While we are taking of concepts, you are taking of events. Then where is the contradiction? Apply our concept and tell us what is wrong. Is it because we did not follow your theory and explained the phenomena differently?

First you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" Then you contradict yourself by saying: "You misunderstand ... I am saying PLASMA IS 'dark matter' - it's just a case of what we name it!" If plasma does the precise job of dark matter in the same places, it is not dark matter, but something different that does similar work in the same places. You say dark matter is imaginary, but plasma is not imaginary. Then how can plasma be dark matter. In any way, as far as we know, no one in the scientific community agrees with your views. Of course, we may be wrong.

We have derived your DFM, when we wrote: "The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM." But you could not explain Nature the way we have described it. We have theoretically derived the charge of quarks that contains an error element of 3 percent over the accepted values. We have theoretically derived the charge of proton and neutron differently, which can be verified in the laboratory. We have theoretically deduced the value of the fine structure constant It is 7/960 (1/137) at the so called zero energy level and 7/900 (1/128) at 80 GeV level, which agrees with the measured values. Till date no other scientist has done it. We have given a different law to replace the Coulomb's Law. We have explained the origin of the fundamental forces of Nature and why efforts to unite gravity will not succeed. Can you derive these or other verifiable values from your theory or explain natural phenomena like we had done? If yes, please go ahead and prove yourself. Simple boasting is not "proof".

Once again, we are an amateur. We may be wrong. But our exact mistake should be pointed out with proof and not self-contradictory or preconceived superstition. That is not science. Nothing personal.

Regards,

basudeba.

Basudeba

Thanks for re-posting your post of 22nd (1 of 3) which I have gone through again in details. The following needs explanation as the 'contradictions' are indeed only apparent;

1) In saying I do the opposite to most and 'assume the problem is with me' it means I don't turn away and assume I'm reading nonsense but persist, as you say. I use logic, so didn't consider anything else would be assumed! (Though clearly I can not always fully understand or resolve everything_. You make wrong assumptions as you seem to automatically assume others are less intelligent than yourself, and wrong assumptions are at the heart of all wrong science!

2) When I say; "ensure I fully understand and look at different viewpoints..." It is not logical or valid English to respond "there may be other viewpoints"!

3) Again you have misunderstood; "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." It means precisely what you suggested as a COUNTER argument! It means I focus on finding and resolving paradoxes as they always have solutions unseen by the current paradigm.

4) I said I believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level. and you ask "But how do you know what is the correct level?" Again this is logically flawed. It is clear that when it becomes logical it is at the correct level to become logical! You will note I did not say 'correct' as, philosophically, that can never be proved.

5) I did indeed understand your; "frame of reference not connected to your frame." I suspect this may be only semantics, but the whole explanation of frame transition hinges on it, and it is what I referred you have not studied in the DFM, where ALL frames are 'connected'. This seems in may be a logical step beyond all I've seen in your work. It's embodied in your distinguishing between light scattered directly towards you from that scattered at an angle.

Light may travel across many frame boundaries, and 'Stokes' or 'Anti Stokes' scattered at each subject to their vectors, so all are 'connected' but only two can ever be connected 'locally'.

6) I have explained my concept in great detail, and only give Gedankens to assist others. (bus, train, river etc.) I agree ref objects moving in different frames, but do not understand "objects are perceived only during transition", which seems to imply objects at rest in the same frame are not visible!? Please explain. How does your version explain 7c gas jets in plain English.

7) When I write; "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" The convention of the use of inverted commas in this context around 'dark matter' means I refer to the TERM 'dark matter' as used by others, which means I'm inferring plasma IS dark matter. It's the famous 'Duck' analogy. If it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't care if you've always called it a 'Dodo', Whether that's what your community believes or not I shall test the assumption that it may just be a duck!

In general terms I've confirmed we agree on up to 99% of your theory. But then however we diverge. I have studied and compared the two divergent paths. Yours seems quite plausible and interesting, yielding some promising results, but seemingly without falsifiability. I accept I may be wrong as there are parts I don't fully understand.]

However, my path goes on the explain the basis of Equivalence, tying SR into GR with a quantum mechanism, giving full unification. At last count there were also over a dozen paradoxes and anomalies it resolves. All that is lost if I try to use your divergent path. Again I may be wrong, and if you can find consistency I'd be delighted, and our joint model may be powerful enough for a paradigm shift. Unfortunately you seem unwilling to consider any alternatives outside yours and consider any change or development. That's how 'old' science operates. (I don't work that way, my structure has evolved using many specialist components from many fields). I've done the same with Sreenath and found greater potential for compatibility in the later stages, which we're exploring with others.

I say again your work is excellent Basudeba, and much of the core is very consistent with mine. You say; "no one in the scientific community agrees with your views". That may be your view, but if the essay marks can be considered as any indication at least some seem to find some agreement. You should be aware that kind of inappropriate comment along with your misunderstandings cleared up up above is what can put people off support, agreement and collaboration.

If you're prepared to also study my half of our divergence not just your own I will be happy to discuss.

Peter

Dear Yuri,

As I recall, one of your papers points to the importance of 36 degrees and its multiples. The 36-72-72 degree triangle is the Golden Triangle whereby the short side of the triangle is shorter than the two long sides by the Golden Ratio, phi = (SQRT(5) 1)/2 = 1.618...

This angle of 36 degrees implies the importance of the number "5", and ties in with my ideas on "pentality" symmetries, and Coldea et al's recent mass measurements of magnetic Ising quasiparticles near criticality.

Granted, the numbers 1 and 3 are very important. Our sudies likewise imply that the number 5 is relevant. Curiously enough, these are all small Prime numbers, and all small Fibonacci numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,..., and the Fibonacci numbers are related to powers of the Golden Ratio (which I briefly touched on in my essay - I shortened some of the details so that I wouldn't scare people away with the mathematics).

Is this "natural philosophy" or is this "numerology"? I know that Mohamed Saladin El Naschie has taken much criticism for his so-called "numerology", and sometimes he may push the "coincidence" a bit too far. But I think that some level of "natural truth" exists here.

If the number "five" is important, then WHY? Does this imply a level of Reality that we don't see directly? Is this a piece of the puzzle that doesn't yet make sense to us mere mortals?

Dear Basudeba,

I've run out of time, but expect to respond to you later.

Have Fun!

Dear Sir,

As usual you impose your views on us. Hence let us clarify each.

1) We should not assume the fault is either in us or in the theory. In fact we should not assume anything - least of all wrong assumptions, but locate the contradictions or inconsistencies from the natural process and try to resolve them through logic and natural philosophy.

2) "Different view points" are not the same as "All view points". There may still be "Other view points". This is valid English.

3) We do not "focus on finding and resolving paradoxes", as it unnecessarily distracts our attention. We do not have that much spare time. But whenever we come across paradoxes, we try to resolve it through logic and natural philosophy. Further "life blood" stands for "source of sustenance". We do not survive through paradoxes or solving them.

4) The statement: "when it becomes logical it is at the correct level to become logical," is called circular logic, which is not a valid form of logic. It defines logical as correct and goes on to prove that correct is logical! While we do not dispute the essence of your logic, our question is: "how do you know what is the correct level?" There is no fixed yardstick for correctness. What you say as correct may not be incorrect. Once everybody believed that we cannot land on the Moon. That was correct then. But it is no more correct now.

5) We do not see what different concept you are hinting at about DFM? We have clearly mentioned that what you call as DFM forms a part of our general theory. It is not new for us. But we cannot be confined within it since we are referring to something much bigger. When we say field only is absolute and particles are locally confined fields, we mean the same as you. When we say the particles interact with the field, which affects the field, which in turn affects other particles, we mean nothing but "whole explanation of frame transition hinges on it" and "so all are 'connected' but only two can ever be connected 'locally'". So what new things you are telling?

6) In our essay and in these columns also we have described the mechanism of perception as the comparison (measurement) of the disturbance created by an object in the medium with that of our eye. Disturbance involves displacement. The displacement can be of two types: external displacement of position or internal displacement due to time evolution. Both are covered by the term transition as it indicates both external and internal temporal evolution. Without perceiving this transition, we cannot perceive. However, it does not affect their temporal evolution. They follow their own dynamics again due to interaction with the local field as modified by other effects on it.

7) If it is a duck, call it a duck. Simply say that dark matter is a misnomer and plasma and dark matter are the same thing. We believe no one from the scientific community will accept it. If plasma, which is well known is dark matter, how do you explain the missing mass that led to postulating it? If you say the theory of missing matter is wrong, how do you explain the receding galaxies at ever increasing rate? We explain it differently by our theory of gravitation. Do you have any theory for this?

8) We also equivalence, but in a different context than GR. Einstein's views and predictions have been repeatedly proved to be wrong and wherever they have been proved correct, there are other explanations for it. SR is wholly wrong. QM started out to be a correct theory, but somewhat derailed over the years. We can explain all phenomena in our theory.

9) We said "no one in the scientific community agrees with your views" in the context of your assertion that plasma is dark matter and we repeat it again. We are not expecting anything from any one. We cannot compromise with TRUTH - come what may. We do not flatter and not want to be flattered. In case someone does not want to listen to our views, we do not force any one. We have commented here because it was a public debate where everyone had a right to say what they thought. It is for others to accept it or ignore it.

10) Once again we repeat that your views form a small part of our theory. You are talking about events. We are talking about concepts. Hence we would advise you to come out with an open mind and judge it for yourself in the context of your Essay.

Regards,

Basudeba.

Hi Yuri,

A quick follow-up...

As I recall, you also used 18 degrees. Can these be converted into 36 degree angles by using double-angle trigonometric identities such as:

cos(2*theta) = 2*cos^2(theta) - 1

Have Fun!

Dear Basudeba,

I have never seen a hyperspace or multiverse dimension, so I cannot say exactly what they are. As I suggested earlier, many may declare Kaluza-Klein compacted dimensions to be internal degrees-of-freedom that only have a "mathematical realness", but no "physical realness" - this is the common treatment of "intrinsic spin". How can a "point particle" have spin angular momentum? Classically, we have L=mvr, but r->0 gives L->0, not an electron intrinsic spin of s = 1/2 h-bar.

I like the Babylonian choice of 360 degrees per circle. This fits the Earth year fairly well (365.2425... days per year if the recent Japanese Earthquake didn't change the Earth's rotation too much). It also has similarities with an SU(19) Lie Algebra of order 360 = 20*18 = 6*5*4*3 = 6!/2!

This toroidal spiral construct of soccer balls is half finished. It looks like a coiled snake! I really don't need to finish this toroidal spiral because enough is here to answer my questions. Find the nearest rubber band, and twist it until it flips around into 3 loops. Now imagine that rubber band as a closed geodesic toroidal spiral. It requires a total of four soccer balls to build this construct. Perhaps each "soccer ball" has the equivalent intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar (a fermion), two soccer balls represent 1 h-bar (a vector boson), three soccer balls represent 3/2 h-bar (gravitinos), four soccer balls represent 2 h-bar (a graviton), and then the loop is completed!

You mentioned something about 6+4 unique directions. Your logic seemed faulty because you gave the first 6 coordinates in 3-D, and the last 4 in 2-D.

Huh?

Your idea sounds close to a Face-Centered-Cubic Close-Packing Lattice (see Figure 1 of my essay), but did you neglect the top and bottom faces?

If you want to make these sort of geometrical arguments, I would suggest using the Pentachoron.

Go easy on Randall-Sundrum. I liked Lisa Randall's book. Besides - you can't believe everything you read - The tabloids may say that Supersymmetry is dead, but they also say that Elvis is alive! (and touring with Michael Jackson - really - I saw them in Las Vegas!)

But really - When a research team publishes an article in Nature and says that Supersymmetry is dead, that are making certain assumptions about the expected nature of a Weak-Scale Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. We "mere mortals" do not yet understand what effect additional scales (in my essay) or a TOE will have on the discovery of Supersymmetry. Please allow the LHC to gather enough data to work out the details. Would it be fair of me to flip a coin once, it lands on heads, and I declare that "Heads is all there is and ever will be!".

You concluded by saying "We have an alternate model derived from fundamental principles by which we can explain the "creation event" to evolution of forces to structure formation and evolution."

The Big Bang was a so-called singularity. How can infinity exist in a finite Observable Universe (13.7 billion light years is huge but finite)? An infinite Multiverse allows an infinite Big Bang to occur, but then the Multiverse is infinitely old, and our Observable Universe is a small speck of fractal dust in an infinite Cantor set Multiverse.

Regarding Evolution, it seems to be a complex quandry of ideas: Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, Non-Darwinian, Stasis and Punctuation,... and we still don't exactly understand the "Origin of Life" - that transition from "non-living Chemistry" to "living Biology". And is it really "non-living Chemistry", or do we experience "being" because "being" exists at every scale (certainly to different magnitudes) from the Multiverse scale down to the Hyperspace scale?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hello Peter,

We were talking earlier about the visualisation of protons and neutrons w.r.t toroids, (the neutron having a Mobius twist). I woke-up with a new idea after talking with Ray. I've copied the essentials over for you to comment on:

I read your post with increased enthusiasm. We are starting to get to a common ground on many issues. A couple of points that need mentioning is the flux density of gravitons which can be an alternative to your "thread pitch" visualisation. The number of gravitons which interact per time scale will also influence the overall gravity force in a field. It's wrong to think that gravity is a weak force and always attractive though imo. It's only the resultant field from protons and neutrons in matter configurations which have a weak field. The gravitons could be emitted in a combination of repulsive configuration and attraction configuration for example, it's just that more attractive gravitons are emitted overall into the surrounding field. This ties in with magnetism and the electric field which have forces of repulsion as well as attraction. Both can be modelled via gravitons imo.

I've been thinking some more. I thought of a three braided helix 'rope' as the configuration of the proton and neutron toroids. The central thread at the start of the creation of the structure could have a repulsive nature and emit anti-gravitons. The other two would be the familiar Archimedes screw gravitons in attractive configuration. It's a novel thought that needs expanding on I think. Anyhow, bye for now,

AlanAttachment #1: 5_Note1.jpg

Dear Sir,

Thank you for proving us right. We are talking of concepts and you are stuck with events. It is natural that you do not see our logic - let alone apply those concepts to analyze your events and test it.

Since we discuss concepts your post is nothing more than words for us. Hence let us terminate this discussion.

Good Bye.

basudeba.

Peter,

Yes, it does begin to sound plausible. I'm lost in the language of a modern physicist to some degree perhaps, but I'm getting some of the mental imagery you speak of. The neutron star is definitely something which I'm interested in modelling and relates to the 'inclination hypothesis' which can explain the ice age cycle better than Milankovitch's standard insolation changes with eccentricity. I'm happy with talking about paths and not necessarily particles if you prefer, no problem.

The combination of physics with "we think therefore we am" is an enduring one and I also find the topic upbeat if not a bit fanciful. I've always been aware that a story of creation and an end-life is something that the laymen of the world -want- to hear. If western scientists solved a t.o.e which didn't include this human element, then the psychological game of world unity might be unwittingly lost, in the short term at least.

My original question with regard to proton and neutron torid shapes and constituent configurations was about the so called 'weak gravity field of matter' which doesn't necessarily mean that the gravity force itself is weak. My mental imagery at the moment is a smaller scale than quasars and so called 'black holes', I'm trying to visualise the domains in magnetic iron. Do you remember the first time you felt the magic repulsive force of two magnets Peter? I'm still mystified around 36 years later.

How does your personal model explain the mechanics of an iron magnet? I'm convinced that it's due to gravitons, which can be both repulsive and attractive. The internal dynamic geometry has a break of symmetry which gives a residual weak gravitational field from matter. You must have a different opinion of how to combine the gravity field with the magnetic field presumably. Can you provide something simple that a layman or Scientific American reader could understand I wonder?

Kind regards,

Alan

I am familiar with Alain Connes view from Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com...ter-of-particle

"The picture that emerges from the Standard Model, then, is that of spacetime as a noncommutative space that can be viewed as consisting of two layers of a continuum, like the two sides of a piece of paper. The space between the two sides of the paper is an extra discrete (noncontinuous), noncommutative space. The discrete part creates the Higgs, whereas the continuum parts generate the gauge bosons, such as the W and Z particles, which mediate the weak force"

It seems to me non esthetic.

Peter

If the standard model has never been aesthetic for you,can you comment following articles?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/clouds.htm

http://bourabai.narod.ru/winter/relativ.htm

All the best

Yuri

With 300 Posts, there is even still a vanishinly small possibility that you will see this.

Therefore hello again Dr. Jackson and wonderous essay please see my thourough commentary on my own thread, which has an Order of Magnitude leass posts!

To be as cryptic as needed: it is my skeptical concern that the sense with which you misspelled Piers Morgan (On a Pale Horse--read it as a teenager--also wondrous) was intentional and a device of eliciting verbiage. How do you respond? heh