THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED

Yes there have.

Unless the other person who imitates your writings is not you.
It is true that you write using multiple names?

I replied to one of those names, Niam, on 2/24/2008, on alt.sci.physics,
by email as requested. In my reply I wrote a valid objective comment
regarding a definition of geometry that you, or that other person, had
stated incorrectly.

Ralph Hertle

Reference the reply to Niam:

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

This was first posted on alt.sci.physics and is here redirected to your
individual email, [Only registered users see links. ].

Niam:

Niam wrote:
[...]

The text of my previous reply was revised.

You may want to check one or two definitions.

I am an architect and student of geometry, and I found that the
definition of a straight line that you state is not exactly correct. I
realize that the context of physics is not the same as that of the
hierarchical science of geometry, however, here is the point that I wish
to suggest.

.. . . . . . .

HPO:

The Big Bang hypothesis is in part based upon more than one of the
definitions that were set forth by Euclid.

In my study of geometry I found that the definition of a straight line
that is commonly used in the sciences is not exactly correct. I realize
that the context of physics is not the same as that of the hierarchical
science of geometry, however, the geometry of Euclid continues to exist
as one of the fundamental premises of the Big Bang. That premise is wrong.

Euclid did not define the straight line as,

A straight line is the shortest distance between any two points.

That is a definition by non-essential and non-defining properties, for
example that the concept of the two specific end points, and the concept
of a minimum length. Also the concepts of a point, line, and extremities
are assumed to be given and valid without a specific definition provided
prior. That violates the hierarchy of concepts, and a fallacy involving
distribution could probably be found.

Euclid's definition given in "The ELements", Book 1, is,

Defn. 4: "A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points
on itself."

The prior three definitions that are essential due to the Aristotelian
system of hierarchical definitions that Euclid uses are,

Defn. 1 "A point is that which has not part."

Defn. 2 "A line is breadthless length."

Defn. 3 "The extremities of a line are points."

Re. Defn 4, of the straight line, the principle of even-ness is the
differentia of the definition, or essential defining characteristic. The
genus of the definition, or wider class of ideas for the concept, is the
line that is the magnitude [meaning 'scientific concept' the the Ancient
Greek geometers] of length, and of course, the differentia of the
concept line is that it is breadthless.

The definition of a postulate is in order, here.

* "A postulate is a demonstration of an axiom, a corollary to an
axiom, or an axiomatic concept either in logic or in actuality."

* "An axiom is a universal fundamental scientific concept or principle."

That's my definition of a postulate, and it is consistent with Euclid's
usage of the term, postulate, in every instance. A Postulate to Euclid
is NOT an axiom or assumption. Those are incorrect modernist uses of
terms that greatly modify the hierarchy of the concepts of geometry, and
probably all modern Rationalistic and Post Modern physics and modern
mathematics.

Euclid's Postulates regarding this matter of a straight line are,

Post. 1 " Let the following be postulated: to draw a straight line
from every point to every point."

Post. 2 "To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight
line."

Postulate 1. demonstrates the principle of the concepts, e.g., that one
can demonstrate finite straight lines as a matter of principle and as a
matter of actuality in all selected locations.

Postulate 2 demonstrates the principle of the universality of the
concept, e.g., that it is both finite [meaning it is an epistemological
concept, or idea, as in mathematical concepts given number], and that
its principle is everywhere the same.

That a line or straight line may be extended a selected or chance length
is a matter that is a proposition because extension is a property of a
line, and it is non-essential and non-defining characteristic. In "The
Elements" it is given status as a proposition to be proved after postulates.

The concept of some length is the genus of the concept of a straight
line, however, to say that the entity is the shortest length possible
line that connects two end points is to reduce the definition from a
universal concept to particular instances. In Euclid the principle of
length is all that is necessary, and that may be the length of a coiled
rope or the length of a ship, for example. The concept of even-ness is
the essential defining concept, and that means that for every length one
may conceive of a length that has a type of order or organization such
that it is everywhere consistent according to its principle.

A lemma for the concept of a point is given by Euclid, and that may have
been in use prior to Euclid, for example,

"a point is that which has location only. "

A selected or chance location is one of the properties of a point, and
if that idea were transliterated into a postulate one would demonstrate
in ideas a certain coordinate location or draw a point at a specific
location with a dot.

Euclid didn't give that as a postulate, nor did he prove all the
definitions and postulates. He permits the student to do at least some
of the work of demonstrating ideas in the real world.

To define a straight line as the shortest length between two given
points is to say that only one such line between such points is
possible. That means that the universal defining principle of the
straight line ,of even-ness, has been dropped from the definition, while
at the same time the concept of straight has been assumed in the
two-point concept. That is the fallacy of the stolen concept, and
additionally, it is an example of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter
hoc, in that the thing proved is in the proof of the thing being defined.

Where the use of the modern two-point definition causes troubles in
physics is in the creationist-expansionist's hypothesis of the expansion
of the Big Bang, for example. A star is seen to have red shifted light.
Ignoring for the time being that there may be causes for the energy
reduction of light that do not necessarily involve the star moving away
from the observer, e.g., that photons loose some of their energy in
interactions with hydrogen atoms or molecules in space. The BB advocates
assume the star is moving away claiming the Doppler Effect as the cause
while simultaneously ignoring the evidence of energy loss in
photon-hydrogen interactions. The hydrogen evidence would allow that the
star may not be moving with respect to the observer. The star, for the
time being is considered motionless as a point at location A. The second
point of the straight line is claimed to be the location of the star
having moved. That is point location B. A straight line is drawn as an
idea from point A to point B, and the straight line is additionally
extended beyond A a selected distance. The distance selected is the
extension of the straight line to the intersection of the straight line
extended from another star that is also red shifted. That involves a lot
of Euclidean geometry, and that Euclidean mental drawing work is kept
out of discussion, e.g., kept secret or out of science, due to the
popular consensus that only Non-Euclidean geometry is correct, which is
false. That's another example of the fallacy of the stolen concept. The
intersection, of course, say the [religionist]
creationist-expansionists, is the origin point of dimensional motion of
all physical, and also, mathematical, existents in the universe. There
is no physical evidence that the claimed point of origin exists or ever
did exist. The entire Big Bang hypothesis is based upon the Doppler
Effect and the use of Euclidean geometry to construct an imaginary point
intersection location somewhere in space, and both the assumptions are
false. The conclusion is false. Continuing that explanation a little
further, one may find that the religionists want to deny that the
universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. That is my
definition of the concept of the universe, and that also means that
everything is existing.