I read much. I study much. And I devise much.

From: Malcolm McClurg <mmcclurg@mica.edu>
Subject: My Spatial Problem

Dear Professor X,

My name is Malcolm McClurg. I have encountered a problem regarding existence of space. I was wondering if you could, and would, be willing to help me resolve it, though any degree of advice will be greatly appreciated.

I'm unfamiliar with with methodologies, tools, jargon etc. that might may allow for a technical, more efficient, explication. I am simply, and loosely, compiling passing thoughts. These thoughts have led me to the the single problem.

But first,, a personal introduction.

I. INTRODUCTION

As mentioned, my name is Malcolm McClurg. I am a first-year student at the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). My sculpture professor has given an assignment. Its directive is only one word, 'STRUCTURE'. Vague? Yes. That's art school. Luckily, such generality isn't of immediate relevance. My understanding and approach to art (hereon referred to as 'the artifice') is philosophical. Or perhaps my philosophy is simply artistic. Usually, I concern myself with both the philosophy of physics and metaphysics (truly, I want to be a physicist). I read much. I study much. And I devise much. The product of these three habits is the question at hand. 

When art school assigns a project, I balance my physical inquiries with the 'artistic' methodologies professors require. Experience tells me there is a point at which even MICA professors can find a piece of work too abstract, to theoretical. (be such theories well expounded or not). I adhere to this balance simply to respect my professors' authority. But, this professor has gotten on my nerves. During my negotiation of this balance, he has been overtly diminutive. I am no longer interested in pleasing him. Through this project, personal discovery is in what I am now solely interested. I want answers, or as close to them as I can get. So here I am.

A. Terms

And here are my the terms in which I'm contemplating the problem:

1. Ubiety: The spatiotemporal coordinates of any given entity, where an 'entity' is any object that necessarily exists beyond my direct perception (aka an independent existence). Ubiety is the whereness of existence. For our purposes, the specificity of whereness will not be qualitatively considered. (Ex. A jar fell off a cliff at the Grand Canyon on June 3rd, 1997, at 3:49:05 p.m. : all prepositional phrases within the statement compose the jar's ubiety.

2. Parallax / Parallactic: The discrepancy found between two or more perceived presentations of any same entity. The parallactic perception is that which does not necessarily reflect the true and independent existence of the object. A parallactic perception can hold an epistemic status no more certain than 'unreliable'. The analysis being conducted regards all parallax as speculative.

3. Dasein / Daseinic: Being-in-itself. It is a term central to Heideggarian phenomenology. He solidified the term in The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. It is existence stripped of its subjective, therefore fungible, ornament. 

B. How Might Space Defined & Identified?

The corollary of motion, is space. The dynamic is expressed in figure 1.

A → B

(fig. 1)

Motion is necessarily the product of movement; without movement prior, it cannot be. There can only be movement, however, if prior there is distance across which a thing can travel. Such that, the place of a given entity before (A) and after (B) said entity's movement can accurately verify the completed motion of this same entity. Motion, then, is the transference of truth-claim from ubiety (A) to ubiety (B), where ubiety (abbrev: ubi.) (A) can never share the truth-claim of ubi. (B). Ubietic change is motion. And, if this generic entity, (X), possesses ubiety, it must be daseinic. Further, (X) is composed, even if partially, primary qualities, and these primary qualities establish it as independent existence. This system describes the basis of my general method, specifically, the criterion used to identify space -- specifically, space-in-itself, daseinic space, true space. My intent is to provide for myself a deeper, perhaps even whole, understanding of space-in-itself, confronting the following question: Is it in fact possible to truly, absolutely, move from (A) to (B)? (i.e. If it can, how can the existence of space-in-itself be rationally proven?)

II. The Problem: Parallax and Regression,  The Identity-of-Your-Idea, . . . etc. 

An important distinction to make, ubiety is whereness, but it is not location. It is what allows there to be a location. Ubiety is the basest ability to occupy a position. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (I continue).

[ TLDR; Does space exist? Yes or no, can the answer be mathematically proven? Can the existence of space be mathematically proven? If not, why? If yes, how? Are there already proofs? If yes, where and what are they? If not, might my rudimentary line of reasoning, outlined below, be sound enough to at least point me in the direction of worthwhile research (though I'm aware regardless that I presently haven't the education to effectively pursue such research)? ]

I apologize for the somewhat abrupt stop. I don't want to take up your time, and, if allowed, I can ramble on for hours. I think the general gist of my rough contemplation / outline accurately composes my central concern, and the methodology through which I might further explore the topic: can the existence of space be mathematically proven. In the excerpt included above, there's a salient adherence to a logic-semantic line of reasoning (in the trend Kripke, Quine, Saussure, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Lehrer, etc.). But don't let me fool you. Written are but little more than passing thoughts, starting points. I'm not attempting to, and am not interested in, arguing that space is not necessarily created nor maintained as a linguistic presupposition. Simply, the references made and ideas cited are the closest to those of the physical sciences that I, an undergrad (an art student, no less), have any familiarity.

Or, if I've only come across as unintelligibly pretentious -- a nonsense lunatic, sorry! Regardless, if you've read this, thanks for your consideration!

(I hope I make sense!!)

Thanks much,

Malcolm McClurg

What is the formula of the stupid Einstein?

Newer 3 pseudo-scientists received Nobel prizes Gabriel Black <gab_black@gmail.hu>

Welcome dear Dr. XXX,

My real name is . The Gabriel Black is only a direct translation of my hungarian name. You know very-well me. I sent you many emails with spoofed senders in the headers of that emails. But not this is the important. The important things are found in the followings.

In this year the physics Nobel Committee that is the world's pseudo-scientist mafia again donated Nobel prizes to three pseudo-scientists for the detection of the invented and non-existent gravitational wave idiocy which allegedly consists of time and space.

The time is not part of the real world, it is only a human invention and exists only in man's mind as imagination. Neither the pointing clock nor the atomic clock does not measure any time, only the same vibration phases are counted. That is why the faster vibration clock counts more identical vibration phases than its slower vibrating companion. The big pointer counts the identical vibration phases of the seconds pointer and the small pointer counts the identical vibration phases of the big pointer. For this reason the atomic clock nor accurate, since it how would be accurate if it does not measure anything only counts the same vibration phases. The non-existent time does not go anywhere, does not slowing, does not dilatation, have not the feature of the force, only the clocks vibrate, the Earth spins around its axis and circles around the sun. These periodical movements generate the imagination of time in mind of the man. The stupid Einstein, the Nobel awarded fool and pseudo-scientist Thorne, Barish and Weiss and the Nobel donor pseudo-scientist mafioso Alexander Skrinsky did not know this.

Space is just a concept and it does not have a structure. What is the formula of the stupid Einstein? The non-existent time is able to slow down and distort the space which has not any structure. Also the space which has not any structure does tugging the non-existent time. These two nonsense idiocy will give the gravitational wave stupidity and these together become force and will to distort a 4 km long steel tube.

The mass is only a calculated value; m=F/a. It is only a mathematical assistant factor in the physics and it is only for calculations. Therefore the mass never gravited an other mass, only forces are affect to one another.

The gravity affects between two physical bodies on which mass calculable and it does not go anywhere from between the two bodies.

Each effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. However, all the gravitational waves which arrive from several distance will to distort the steel tube alike with 10-18m.

The distance determination happens by triangulation. The Nobel awarded pseudo-scientists have only two observatorium however, they lie that they can to determine the distance of the source of the gravitational waves. From two difractions in the two observatorium they can determine how much never seen and only invented black holes melted together. By my opinion they can do these from coffee grounds too.

The most accurate laser is manufactured by Apel, T.D. Reinhold Laser- und Feinschweisstechnik. The accuracy of these lasers is 0.5*10-7m. Allegedly, the 4 km long tube will be distorted by 10-18 meter when the gravitational wave comes. The accuracy of the laser is 11 orders of magnitude lower than the distortion to be measured. Figuratively phrased; these people are trying to measure atomic diameter with a 10-meter meter rod.

Tubes of 1m in diameter are made of steel. The linear coefficient of thermal expansion of steel that is its alfa-factor is 1.17*10-5. In the case of a single degree of Celsius, the 4 kilometer arm will shrink 46.8 mm, or increase. This is 17 orders of magnitude larger than the expected distort on the steel tube on effect of the invented and nonsense gravitational wave. Due to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the steel tube, the steel tube is always in movement and its long is variable much larger orders of magnitude than 10-18m.

The gravity of the moon removes the ground surface of the earth from the center of the earth by 10 meters. Due to the gravity of the moon, the ground surface and on it the steel tubes are in motion but, these two observatorium do not react to anything. The two simultaneous difractions in the two observatoriums are only random events.

The government of Unites States did cast out over the window one billion dollars of the american taxpayers for the research of the einsteinian stupidity.

The modern physics is only a religion. All the purblind members of this religion believe in stupidities. By my opinion L. Ron Hubbard founded his scientology on base of the modern physics which was founded by the speculator pseudo-scientist Max Planck. The goal of the two religion is common. The goal is to dull as many people as possible and thereby to win them to the religion. The Vatican of the modern physics religion is in Stockholm on the address Lilla Frescativagen 4A.

Also don't forget the following things!

Andre Geim and Constantin Novoselov in 2006 created their first graphene. For 11 years hasn't application area of the graphene.

According to justification of the Nobel Committee in 2010, the graphene transistors are predicted to be substantially faster than today's silicon transistors and result in more sufficient computers.

The silicon is a semiconductor material. It is therefore suitable for making transistors. Therefore the graphene transistor is fully a nonsense imagining because the graphene is not a semiconductor, it is a very good elecrical conductor. In regard of the last 11 years Andre Geim and Constantin Novoselov received their Nobel prizes and 10 million Swedish Korona undeservedly for the nothing.

According to justification of the Nobel Committee in 2015, Takaaki Kajita and Arhur B. McDonald received their Nobel prizes for the discovery of the neutrino oscillation, which shows that neutrinos have mass.

The Nobel Committee donated again Nobel prizes and 8 million Swedish Korona for the nothing, since yet always is unknown the numerical worth of the frequency, impulse, kinetic energy and therefore the mass of the neutrinos. Without the numerical worth of the frequency hasn't proved the neutrinos have oscillation and mass. According to a theory of the modern physics pseudo-science, in one light-year thick layer of lead is absorbed only half of the neutrinos, then how is it possible to detect neutrinos and the oscillation of the neutrino? Since Takaaki Kajita and Arhur B. McDonald haven't one light-year thick layer of lead in their laboratories, therefore the discovery of the neutrino oscillations is only a scam! The neutrino is only an invented particle which comes from a wrong theory of the modern physics pseudo-science.

Joseph Incandela who is the exmanager of the CERN and his team issued a speculative explanation in 2012. They said that they detected 133 proton mass Higgs boson. It proved to be a lie, because they detected only 4 muons and 2 photons. The mass of these is altogether 0.4 proton mass. Francois Englert and Peter Higgs received their Nobel prizes and 8 million Swedish Korona for their ridiculous theory and the fraud of the Incandela team.

Under the 4 years working on the LHC was executed many billion times billion collisions and was only ONE detection, but it also had been falsified by the Incandela team. The physics Nobel Committee was in collaboration with the cheater Incandela team therefore gave Nobel prizes still in that year to the two delusional pseudo-scientists.

The building of the LHC monster was 6.4 billion euros and it is comletely useless. The CERN LHC is an energy wasting monster and there are payed the thousands of the delusional pseudo-scientists.

The following part of the email does contain many important personalized informations for you.

Best wishes,

You know very well that modern physics is entirely a perfect pseudo-science. However, you have not done anything against this pseudo-science yet and you have not done nothing to do for the real physics of the atoms which was described by me. You just did quietly reading of my emails.

I expect you to do against the modern physics pseudo-science and you to do for the real atomic physics!

My publications are available on the web only must be search for that in the Google but, the availablity of my one website you can found in the end of this email. You can refer to that.

You can maybe connect to interested persons. The contact list of these persons are available on the above website in the "Top readers above 50 readings" section.

Many people are listening to reading of my paper. There are probably many of them in your institute too. You can found them on the site in the section "More than 49.000 another people in all the World -> Educations".

Also you can propagate my paper on scientific conferences and meeting and among your colleagues.

If you do not do anything, then I promise you that you will not be long on the scientific track.

After the dead failure of the modern physics pseudo-science the list on the above site becomes a shame list. Do not want to see yourself again in this shame list!

Decide that you are against the science or for the science!