Universe and Time

Phonetic_Ethics · January 13, 2016, 5:26am

Simple. You. Have. Fake. Information. That. Has. Nothing. Do. With. The. Existing. Framework. Of. All. Layers. Of. Dimension. Ergo. You. Are. Living. Inside. Your. Own. Head.

That’s why you called earth 2-D, when it’s 3-D. Hence “4 Corners”. Hence the Diameter aligns with the Circumference (3-D).

Ultimate_Philosophy · January 13, 2016, 5:31am

Sorry for being mean, it is clear that you are just mentally impaired in some way.

Are’nt schizophrenics who write self-referential connections also, living in their head, because they are unable to explain themselves in any rational, conceivable way, without dumping piles of delusional sounding numbers?

Your proofs are litterally 3+8+4 = 6…And now I feel like I’m on the short bus again…

Ultimate_Philosophy · January 13, 2016, 5:34am

Never said it wasn’t 3d. I just said 11 moons would fit within the perimeter of a 2d earth. Not everyone is special like you.

Phonetic_Ethics · January 13, 2016, 5:35am

The entire Universe was built with 123456789.

Just because you’re an ignorant mortal, doesn’t mean numbers cannot exceed your level of comprehension – they created you and your ignorance to be frank.

Phonetic_Ethics · January 13, 2016, 5:36am

Where is your mathematical formula? All I see is words from you. Explain why 11 moons would fit within the permeter of a 2-D Earth.

Ultimate_Philosophy · January 13, 2016, 5:48am

Was there ever any doubt?

James_S_Saint · January 13, 2016, 9:39am

If you begin with 2 cups, you have (1/10)^[1]2[/b]
With 3 cups, you have (1/10)^[2]3[/b]
And with 10 cups, you have (1/10)^[3]10[/b]

Ultimate Philosophy 1001:

Well, let’s define the term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+…]
Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line
Where did you get that equation from?

It is an ontological definition (“≡”), not an equation.

Well, I have been known to make mistakes, but you’ll have to show me exactly where.

Yes, and an infinite cube is infA^3
…unless you are using the real-number system so as to include decimals, then it is infA^[4]6[/b].

That statement doesn’t appear to make any sense. If by “step-value” you mean one infinitesimal, such is a matter of choice and ontological definition/declaration. Any amount can be used as long as it is consistent throughout.

It has nothing to do with particles. And even if it did, what happens when you divide the smallest thing (an infinitesimal) into an infinite thing? You get infA^2.

I’m afraid with that, you got into a little too much nonsense for me. And the universe is NOT finite. What makes you think that it is?

b ↩︎
b ↩︎
b ↩︎
b ↩︎

Phonetic_Ethics · January 13, 2016, 5:42pm

It appears to me…

That your numbers have no relevance to reality.

Arminius · February 28, 2016, 11:59pm

What about the opposite one: logic as a subset of mathematics? There were and are people who liked and like that very much. They think that hiding something behind mathematics is easier than hiding something behind logic.

James_S_Saint · February 29, 2016, 1:00am

Well, logic is a more fundamental set of principles. Mathematics deals with particulars by using abstract logic, not the other way around. Logic doesn’t use math or numbers for its principles/“laws”, but math uses logic for its theorems.

surreptitious57 · February 29, 2016, 4:01am

Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic which means it is a subset of logic
There are also non mathematical axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as syllogisms
So therefore all mathematics is based on logic whereas not all logic is based on mathematics

James_S_Saint · February 29, 2016, 7:55am

Actually, they have quite a bit of evidence concerning how many people will yield to a math presentation while scoff at a logic presentation. They fear the math more, so they avoid it and bow.

Arminius · February 29, 2016, 4:20pm

Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!

James_S_Saint · February 29, 2016, 4:34pm

They don’t merely fear the math, they respect it as well. Combined, you get many people whining about everything … else.

Arminius · February 29, 2016, 5:10pm

If they did not respect it, then they would not be cynics. So the furtive (secret) respect is already a part of the definition of “cynic”.

James_S_Saint · February 29, 2016, 6:13pm

Yeah … I guess.

Moreno · March 2, 2016, 2:54pm

‘Many’ is too vague to draw any conclusions from here.

James_S_Saint · March 3, 2016, 10:55am

EurekaAlert:

The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton’s velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula.
.
.
In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
.
.
The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions.
.
.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable.

Arminius · March 7, 2016, 11:29pm

James S Saint:

EurekaAlert:

The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton’s velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula.
.
.
In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
.
.
The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions.
.
.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable.

Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.

If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.

Kant wrote:
[list]“Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!”
[size=85](Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.)[/size]
Translation:
“Have courage to use your own mind!”[/list:u]

Arminius · April 8, 2016, 11:26pm

Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely something like a socialpsychological religion which is called “science”. And one day you see this:

What are your thoughts?