Spacetime

And you tthink that GPS (or at least its clocks)
can't be real, as it didn't want to fit those
precious equations of your idiot guru. That's
what The Shit is making with the brains of its
victims:(

Thomas Heger

2024-06-25 19:41:34 UTC

My own view:
spacetime is real and particles are not.

As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
nothing or disappears without a trace.

Examples for 'matter out of nothing':
'magic dust'
Growing Earth

Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).

See my 'book' about this idea:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

TH
...

gharnagel

2024-06-25 23:26:47 UTC

spacetime is real and particles are not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

Post by Thomas Heger
As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
nothing or disappears without a trace.

I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservation of
mass-energy is quite firmy established.

Post by Thomas Heger
'magic dust'

I'm not familiar with such.

Post by Thomas Heger
Growing Earth

An unscientific speculation.

Post by Thomas Heger
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
TH

"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth continuum,
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

Yes, in GR fields are real things. But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
photons
are PARTICLES. QFT has tried to get around this by going back to
fields,
but string theory started out with particles. I'm with Feinman.

"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
our
own state of being."

This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

"By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
But our observations are real only to us"

I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real
world.

"The idea is that we could create matter out of nothing"

That's not going to fly with me.

Thomas Heger

2024-06-27 07:09:11 UTC

spacetime is real and particles are not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

Post by Thomas Heger
As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes from
nothing or disappears without a trace.

I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservation of
mass-energy is quite firmy established.

Post by Thomas Heger
'magic dust'

I'm not familiar with such.

Post by Thomas Heger
Growing Earth

An unscientific speculation.

Post by Thomas Heger
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).

See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are
'timelike stable patterns'.

This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.

As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.

This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of
the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.

(Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way
to disprove it.)

Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to
exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain
quarks. (string theory is actually worse)

My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.

Now I only needed VERY few assumption!

that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
with higher dimensions.

Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
are infinetely thin.

Post by gharnagel
"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations on
our
own state of being."
This is essentially the first postulate of SR.
"By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real observations.
But our observations are real only to us"
I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real
world.

No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that
is visible to us.

E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world' behind.

But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range
of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.

But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time
domaine'.

This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to
dissipate into the environment.

But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would
exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.

Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really close.

So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to
guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.

TH

gharnagel

2024-06-27 18:32:57 UTC

detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension

Post by gharnagel
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.

spacetime is real and particles are not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-)

Post by gharnagel
As 'proof of concept' I had effects, where seeminly matter comes

from

Post by gharnagel
nothing or disappears without a trace.

I don't believe that has ever been observed happening. Conservation

Post by gharnagel
mass-energy is quite firmy established.

Post by gharnagel
'magic dust'

I'm not familiar with such.

Post by gharnagel
Growing Earth

An unscientific speculation.

Post by gharnagel
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by gharnagel
TH

"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth

continuum,

Post by gharnagel
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."
Yes, in GR fields are real things. But as Feinman said in Q.E.D.,
photons are PARTICLES. QFT has tried to get around this by going back

Post by gharnagel
fields, but string theory started out with particles. I'm with

Feinman.
Well, I personally think, that material objects like particles are
'timelike stable patterns'.
This was my assumption, which I needed to connect GR and QM.
As proof of concept I had 'growing Earth' in mind.
This is so, because the growth of Earth is happening from the inside of
the planet, where no particles from out space are supposed to be.
(Actually I have always disliked the 'particle concept' and wanted a way
to disprove it.)
Particles are too 'materialistic' for my taste. They also attempt to
exlain particles by particles (quarks), but make no attempts to explain
quarks. (string theory is actually worse)

Them's fightin' words! Put up your dukes!

Post by Thomas Heger
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of something
with higher dimensions.

Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

Post by Thomas Heger
Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
are infinetely thin.

"Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.

Post by gharnagel
"We treat ourselves as more or less as at rest and base observations

Post by gharnagel
our own state of being."

This is essentially the first postulate of SR.

Post by gharnagel
"By this definitions we turn imaginary phenomena into real

observations.

Post by gharnagel
But our observations are real only to us"

I don't believe in "imaginary phenomena." What we observe IS the real
world.

No, we don't, because we can only see a subset of the real world, that
is visible to us.

I disagree. Your use of "visible" is too constrictive. Gamma rays
aren't
"visible" but they ARE detectable by scientific instruments. It's
improper
to call a phenomenon imaginary just because we haven't invented
equipment
to detect it.

Post by Thomas Heger
E.g. we cannot see beyond the horizon, even if there is a 'world' behind.
But visibility is also very limiited to us, because from the wast range
of the em-spectrum we can see only a very small part.

See? You're scope is too limited.

Post by Thomas Heger
But time is also an issue, because we are bond to what I call 'Time
domaine'.
This is so, because we like to stay material objects and do not want to
dissipate into the environment.
But we could imagine, that such a 'universe around the corner' would
exist, where time runs into a different direction than our time.
Such a world would be entirely invisible, even if it could be really close.

Sounds more and more like M-theory (brane theory).

Post by Thomas Heger
So, in effect we can only observe some parts of reality and need to
guess, how the rest of the universe may look like.
TH

Brane theory began with string theory and was built up by logical steps.
Have you read "The Fabric of the Universe" by Brian Greene or Leonard
Susskind's string theory videos on YouTube?

"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained,
think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then
think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the
alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a
much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s
yours."

Maciej Wozniak

2024-06-27 20:22:24 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Brane theory began with string theory and was built up by logical steps.

Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.

Thomas Heger

2024-06-30 07:07:28 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Matter is something I tried to explain as 'timelike stable patterns'
(of/in spacetime).

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by Thomas Heger
TH

"It's based entirely on geometrical relations within a smooth

continuum,

Post by gharnagel
that is supposed to be the spacetime of GR."

...

Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

I wanted to create matter, space and time out of pure nothing.

There exist actually a book about this idea.

It stems from Prof. Peter Rowland of Liverpool and has the title 'From
Zero to Infinity'.

Unfortunaterly it is very expensive and VERY difficult to read.

(My own 'book' is for free and much easier to read.)

Post by Thomas Heger
Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders, which
are infinetely thin.

"Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.

Sure.

That's why I wrote, that spacetime of GR is a smooth continuum.

What we regard as systems, that are actually subparts, which we define
as independent systems, while these borders between them depend on our
definitions.

But actually there are no independent entities, because the entities we
call 'particles' are not as independent as we think.

...

TH

gharnagel

2024-06-30 13:03:08 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of

something

Post by Thomas Heger
with higher dimensions.

Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it
doesn't mean it's false.

Post by gharnagel
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Post by gharnagel
I wanted to create matter, space and time out of pure nothing.

That seems to describe a god complex.

Post by gharnagel
There exist actually a book about this idea.

There are books about ANY idea.

Post by gharnagel
Unfortunaterly it is very expensive and VERY difficult to read.
(My own 'book' is for free and much easier to read.)

I read as much as I could stand.

Post by Thomas Heger
Also: systems are what you call system and have imaginary borders,

which

Post by Thomas Heger
are infinetely thin.

"Infinitely thin" means nonexistent.

Sure.
That's why I wrote, that spacetime of GR is a smooth continuum.

But the real world is not a smooth continuum.

Post by gharnagel
What we regard as systems, that are actually subparts, which we define
as independent systems, while these borders between them depend on our
definitions.
But actually there are no independent entities, because the entities we
call 'particles' are not as independent as we think.
TH

Maybe, maybe not. Have you seen Mindwalk?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk

Thomas Heger

2024-07-04 04:48:59 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
My own approach is very different and based on spacetime of GR as 'real'.
Now I only needed VERY few assumption!
that are mainly: points have features and space is a subset of

something

Post by Thomas Heger
with higher dimensions.

Ah, sounds like M-theory :-))

No, I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it
doesn't mean it's false.

Sure, but dislike wouldn't proof it neither.

'String theory' is based on 'strings' and those are supposed to be
material objects (kind of 'superparticles').

But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.

So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.

That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.

These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.

This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.

It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.

One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.

Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are
connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
'Pauli algebra'.

My 'book' about this idea can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by gharnagel
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Sure, but I'm not a physicist.

TH

gharnagel

2024-07-04 16:39:38 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Post by Thomas Heger
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of GR
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of 'pointlike
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions than
points in Euclidean space have.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

Post by Thomas Heger
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a certain
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than three
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Post by Thomas Heger
Actually I had assumed, such 'points' behave like bi-quaternions and are
connected like a certain type of geometric algebra which is known as
'Pauli algebra'.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Sure,

So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.

Post by Thomas Heger
but I'm not a physicist.
TH

Well, I am.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-04 18:37:30 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor
halfbrain?

gharnagel

2024-07-04 21:10:05 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely

nothing.

Post by gharnagel
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Post by Thomas Heger
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of

Post by Thomas Heger
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of

'pointlike

Post by Thomas Heger
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions

than

Post by Thomas Heger
points in Euclidean space have.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

Post by Thomas Heger
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a

certain

Post by Thomas Heger
equation for quaternions, which is used for rotations.
This concept is my own invention, called 'structured spacetime' and
needs no strings.
It is actually relatively simple and needs only very few unusual
assumptions.
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than

three

Post by Thomas Heger
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to

express

Post by gharnagel
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 03:44:32 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
But I tried to show, that the particle concept itself is wrong.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely

nothing.

Post by gharnagel
Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Post by Thomas Heger
I had an idea for this to become possible. I just take spacetime of

Post by Thomas Heger
for real and assume, that spacetime would consist of kind of

'pointlike

Post by Thomas Heger
elements'.
That is something like a point with features and higher dimensions

than

Post by Thomas Heger
points in Euclidean space have.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

Post by Thomas Heger
These 'elements' are connceted multiplicative 'sideways', like a

certain

three

Post by Thomas Heger
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to

express

Post by gharnagel
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

gharnagel

2024-07-05 13:01:12 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response, but
I'll be condescending to the poor eighth-brain.

Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc. Anything else is frosting on the cake.

I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 13:21:29 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.

gharnagel

2024-07-05 13:43:27 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.

I answered it:

"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry."

Which proves that not only is Wozzie-liar the "D-K idiot" for
believing that numbers are real, but he's also fundamentally
dishonest for deleting by answer to his question and pretending
I didn't answer it.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 15:42:10 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.

"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.
Instead you presented some pseudophilosophical
mumble, as expected from a Shit worshipper
when asked a question.

gharnagel

2024-07-05 16:37:25 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.

"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the
answer I gave:

"anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry."

"Which proves that not only is Wozzie-liar the 'D-K idiot' for
believing that numbers are real, but he's also fundamentally
dishonest for deleting by answer to his question and pretending
I didn't answer it."

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Instead you presented some pseudophilosophical
mumble, as expected from a Shit worshipper
when asked a question.

Wozzie-demented can't understand a valid answer because he's up to
his eyebrows in the shit he wallows in. Nothing philosophical,
pseudo or otherwise, about it. The problem is, he can't pose a
proper question to begin with. It comes from his profession of
shoveling shit for a living. He should go back to his hog wallow
and stay there and eat shit like the other pigs.

I said he was an idiot for believing that numbers are real, and
anyone with more than an eighth of a brain would understand that
answer if it were reduced to a terse yes or a no. Arrogant
Wozzie-hog is not worthy of demanding exactly how his question
is to be answered. Worthiness is EARNED, and Wozzie has miserably
failed to do so on this board.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 17:22:09 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Such a stupid question doesn't really deserve a response

Sure, sure.
"Does the smallest prime number exist" must be
a very stupid question.
And that's because a DK idiot Har doesn't like
to answewr it at the moment.

"I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously

Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.
Of course, instead answerring you presentewd
some mumble combined with insults. That's
how The Shit's doggies are trained to "discuss".

gharnagel

2024-07-06 13:29:56 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.

Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions. That's typical
of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the difference between existence
and physicality? Different answers from different people.

Perhaps Wozzie believes in an ethereal afterlife? If so, he's
in BIG trouble:

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have
their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second
death." -- Revelations 21:8

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Of course, instead answerring

So the D-K idiot STILL can't understand a valid answer even when he has
his nose rubbed in it :-))

Post by Maciej Wozniak
you presentewd some mumble combined with insults. That's how The Shit's
doggies are trained to "discuss".

Wozzie didn't get any insults until HE insulted, slandered and lied. He
just doesn't get it!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/what%20goes%20around%20comes%20around

He has the manners of a shit-eating hog in a mud wallow. And he
defecates
in it, too.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-06 14:43:52 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Nope, poor idiot, the answer would be yes or no.

Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't understand the

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.

Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.

What are definitions, Harrie?
Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
"do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
as the answer to your question?

That's typical

Post by gharnagel
of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the difference between existence
and physicality?

Well - if you answerred the question
"does the smallest prime number exist" -
maybe you'd get some clue about that
difference.
Or maybe not. You're really, really
stupid, Harrie.

gharnagel

2024-07-06 19:59:43 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.

Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.

What are definitions, Harrie?

I posted the definition of definitions and Wozzie-liar
deleted it and then asks for the definition. He really
has some serious mental issues, honesty being a big one.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
"do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
as the answer to your question?

Both cats and dogs have physical existence, so Wozzie
is being dishonest again. He doesn't attack the root
of the problem because he's incapable of critical
thought.

Post by gharnagel
That's typical of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the
difference between existence and physicality?

D-K Wozzie refuses to answer the question at the root
of his ... question, which he only asked to try and trap
an unsuspecting person into an embarrassing dilemma.
But we all know how his devious and deceitful mind works.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Well - if you answerred the question
"does the smallest prime number exist" -
maybe you'd get some clue about that
difference.
Or maybe not. You're really, really
stupid, Harrie.

Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so
Wozzie-pig will just be left oinking, lying and slandering
again. The basic question is, do nonphysical things have
existence? Wozzie won't answer that because he's dishonest.
And stupid.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-06 20:59:41 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Only a poor D-K idiot like Wozzie-idiot wouldn't

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest
prime) is a physical object? The question was
if it exists.

Wozzie seems to have trouble with definitions.

What are definitions, Harrie?

I posted the definition of definitions and Wozzie-liar

Nope, you posted nothing alike. A lie, as
expected from a relativistic idiot
in general and from you especially.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Say honestly, poor trash: if you asked me
"do dogs exist?" and I answerred "They
don't exist as cats" - would you accept that
as the answer to your question?

Both cats and dogs have physical existence,

Sure. So - would you or wouldn't you, poor trash?

so Wozzie

Post by gharnagel
is being dishonest again. He doesn't attack the root
of the problem because he's incapable of critical
thought.

Post by gharnagel
That's typical of a poor D-K idiot. So what is the
difference between existence and physicality?

Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

gharnagel

2024-07-06 21:41:44 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence? Wozzie won't answer
that because he's fundamentally dishonest and stupid.

Like a hog in a wallow, he can't think beyond his abysmally-
stupid original question, as if its answer means anything in
the scheme of things, while the meaningful question goes
unaddressed by hog-wallow Wozzie.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-07 05:42:59 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?

No, trash, mistaken as usual. Your pseudophilosophy
is no way basic - the basic question is: does the
smallest prime number exist or not.

gharnagel

2024-07-07 13:02:41 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?

No, trash, mistaken as usual.

Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
- the basic question is: does the smallest prime number exist or not.

No, Wozzie-the-lying-oinker, the basic question is, what do you mean by
"exist"? You refuse to answer so you leave it up to me. I interpret
that to mean "physically," and therefore numbers, all numbers, don't
exist. I gave you this answer several times but your skull seems to be
made of neutronium since you come back again and again asking the same
question. What do you expect, a different answer? Are you insane?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different
results." -- Albert Einstein

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-07 14:11:44 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so

So - the smallest prime number doesn't
exist. Right, Harrie, poor halfbrain?

so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?

No, trash, mistaken as usual.

Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."

Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.

So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

BTW, can you point experiments confirming
your pseudophilosophical dillema to be basic?

gharnagel

2024-07-07 21:20:04 UTC

Post by gharnagel
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?

No, trash, mistaken as usual.

Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."

Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

I already did that. So Wozzie-oinker just keeps going in circles.
I suppose he believes that makes him a big wheel.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your pseudophilosophy is no way basic

No philosophy involved, only a simple definition.

So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it. According to a physical definition
for existence, numbers don't exist. Wozzie seems to be excessively
autistic.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
BTW, can you point experiments confirming
your pseudophilosophical dillema to be basic?

Philosophy isn't an experimental discipline, so Wozzie-oinker is just
trying to obfuscate again. He routinely deletes my answers to his
questions and pretends I didn't answer them, proving his fundamental
dishonesty. He must have been trying to get me to say that prime
numbers are real, or name the smallest one, so he could insist that
I show him one in the universe, or if I said "3" he would argue that
I must prove that "2" isn't; or if I said "2" he would argue that I
must prove that "3" isn't. Wozzie-oinker is a deceitful, small-souled
little pig, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."

Miltiadis Komáromi Hew

2024-07-07 22:08:34 UTC

So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest prime doesn't exist.
Right, poor halfbrain?

I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it. According to a physical definition
for existence, numbers don't exist. Wozzie seems to be excessively
autistic.

that's because capitalist vaccines, or poison on bread and water. Along the
history. Proofs

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱__𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗨𝗦_𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗪𝗮𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘄_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/UBD51Q5g8saO

or

𝗢𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗔_𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲__𝗕𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗛_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗨.𝗦._𝗦𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗦𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗔𝗶𝗿_𝗔𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/kltZLMEBr84B

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-08 04:15:45 UTC

Post by gharnagel
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?

No, trash, mistaken as usual.

Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."

Right after you define "defining", poor trash.

I already did that.

No.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
So, by [your] "definition" (sic!) - the smallest
prime doesn't exist. Right, poor halfbrain?

I'm glad Wozzie has finally got it.

Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
spoken to him, so he knows.

gharnagel

2024-07-08 13:45:48 UTC

Post by gharnagel
so Wozzie-pig keeps deleting so he will just be left oinking,
lying and slandering again and again. The basic question is,
do nonphysical things have existence?
Sorry, oinker, you're trying to avoid responsibility for defining
"exist."

"Exist" is used fairly broadly, so Wozzie-pig-poop-prevaricator
tries to twist it into what I said it wasn't.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
spoken to him, so he knows.

Lying Wozzie-pig says nature doesn't speak, now all of a sudden, the
dishonest Wozzie-defecator proclaims that "Basic mathematics" DOES
speak. What hypocrisy! What dishonesty! What a word-twisting,
flatulent idiot.

Wozzie-idiot doesn't seem to know the difference between an invention
of the mind and the reality of nature. He tries to make a fool's
argument by comparing fairies to rocks. This proves that this
"information engineer" can't think rationally.

“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers…. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

Perhaps Wozzie-dunce is laid up with a broken leg.

Wozzie fool is obviously arguing for the sake of argument. He has
no friends to love him so he attracts attention by posing insane
notions so he can feel important when someone takes the bait. It
gives him a thrill when he can score a put-down because it makes
him feel smart, in his own demented opinion.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-08 13:59:13 UTC

"Exist" is used fairly broadly, so Wozzie-pig-poop-prevaricator
tries to twist it into what I said it wasn't.

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Basic mathematics says it exists. Harrie
says it doesn't. The Nature Herself has
spoken to him, so he knows.

Lying Wozzie-pig says nature doesn't speak, now all of a sudden, the
dishonest Wozzie-defecator proclaims that "Basic mathematics" DOES
speak.

It's generating claims... and "the smallest
prime number exists" is one of them.
Of course, as the Chosen One spoken to
by Nature Herself you must know better.
No doubt.

gharnagel

2024-07-08 14:06:16 UTC

[Congenital lies]

“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers…. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to
the corner store and back without breaking a leg.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

Perhaps Wozzie-dunce is laid up with a broken leg.

Wozzie fool is obviously arguing for the sake of argument. He has
no friends to love him so he attracts attention by posing insane
notions so he can feel important when someone takes the bait. It
gives him a thrill when he can score a put-down because it makes
him feel smart, in his own demented opinion.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-08 14:22:50 UTC

[Congenital lies]

:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?

Post by gharnagel
“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers….

And some other morons defined communism as the
best political system ever, effective and just.

gharnagel

2024-07-08 14:45:17 UTC

[Congenital lies]

:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?

Mathematics is a human invention. What it "claims" is really
a human claim.

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane

Post by gharnagel
“We defined thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct
answers….

And some other morons defined communism as the
best political system ever, effective and just.

Wozzie better watch out. When Putin gets done with Ukraine, he's next.
Then he'll have to proclaim Putinism to be the best system ever, or
else!

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-08 15:07:09 UTC

[Congenital lies]

:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?

Mathematics is a human invention.

Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
you!!!!

What it "claims" is really

Post by gharnagel
a human claim.

Unlike a claim of Harrie, of course! His
claim of is a GOD's claim!!!

gharnagel

2024-07-08 16:43:14 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?

Mathematics is a human invention.

Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
you!!!!

Silly Wozzie-fool! The "laws" of physics are also human
inventions that try to mimic nature. DUH!

Post by gharnagel
What it "claims" is really a human claim.

Unlike a claim of Harrie, of course! His
claim of is a GOD's claim!!!

Silly, silly Wozzie-heretic! He believes everyone is like
himself: pretentious liars :-))

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-08 16:59:13 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
:) Oh, was it really a lie that "the smallest
prime number exists" is a claim of basic
mathematics?

Mathematics is a human invention.

Unlike physics. Invented by GODS! Like
you!!!!

Silly Wozzie-fool! The "laws" of physics are also human
inventions that try to mimic nature. DUH!

As said many times - you have completely no
clue. Anyway, constant pretending of having
something much, much bigger than mere claims of
mere human mortal worms is the most standard
song of your moronic church, and only idiots
like you can buy it.

Erich Missiakos Kong

2024-07-06 21:33:28 UTC

Well - if you answerred the question "does the smallest prime number
exist" - maybe you'd get some clue about that difference.
Or maybe not. You're really, really stupid, Harrie.

Cats exist in the physical world but numbers don't, so Wozzie-pig will
just be left oinking, lying and slandering again. The basic question
is, do nonphysical things have existence? Wozzie won't answer that
because he's dishonest. And stupid.

we are in agreement. With science quotes worth to be remembered.

𝗔_𝗸𝗶𝗱_𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗝𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝘁𝗼_-_𝗦𝗵𝘂𝘁_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗙𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝗨𝗽!
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/wE7gKal8XTng

𝗜'𝗺_𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝘂𝗺_𝗶𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄_𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺!_-_𝗝𝗼𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/Bgf2CtNv4L9P

𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀_𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗧𝗩_-𝗦𝗺𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗠𝗮𝗻_-𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲_𝗦𝗲𝘁_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱_𝗗𝗼𝗹𝗹_𝗙𝗘𝗔𝗥_&_𝗣𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗖
https://old.b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/jAHVg7ojHLxt

Rexx Hatukaev

2024-07-06 16:17:23 UTC

Who was asking you whether a number (the smallest prime) is a
physical object? The question was if it exists.

Perhaps Wozzie believes in an ethereal afterlife? If so, he's in BIG
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers,
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which
is the second death." -- Revelations 21:8

you talk about the shithole america, my friend. so much indeed. I give to
you 10 big points for it.

𝗘𝗨,_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢_𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆_𝗮𝘀_𝗢𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻_𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄_𝘁𝗼_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸_𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲

𝗪𝗮𝗿_𝗵𝗮𝘀_𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢’𝘀_𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮_–_𝗢𝗿𝗯𝗮𝗻
In an op-ed published on the same day as his visit to Moscow, the Hungarian
PM warned that the military bloc risks committing “suicide”
https://r%74.com/news/600557-hungarian-pm-orban-nato-warmongering/
NATO has effectively made warmongering its raison d’être by jettisoning its
original “peaceful” and “defensive” nature, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor
Orban has claimed.

It’s good to expose NATOs true objectives. Not like it hasn’t been obvious
for a while. Read NATO’s NAZI beginngs👍

It is a mental issue with the Anglo-Saxon cabals. An OBSESSION. Like a
TRAIN with NO BRAKES

Europe has been at war for centuries, NATO isn't getting stronger, it's
getting weaker, because the EU can't afford it...!

NATO is created as a tool to destroy Moscow. And Hungary is a part of it.

It is NOT NATO'S agenda, it is THE ZIONIST JEWS AGENDA, it has been always
and will always be until they are destroyed

If things are like Orban says, when will Hungary leave NATO?

And the bloodthirsty warmongers are being ejected one by one, starting with
Johnson/Truss/Draghi/Sunak/Macron.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-07-05 16:17:45 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Something I found absolutely brilliant when I first read it is the
chapter in volume 1 of Feynman's Lectures on Physics, where he starts
with counting sheep and proceeds in simple understandable steps to
logarithms and Euler's identity (e^{i pi} + 1 = 0).

Post by gharnagel
Anything else is frosting on the cake.
I like frosting (I have a degree in mathematics, so I obviously
do), but anyone who believes numbers, any number, exist as real
objects out there in the universe somewhere has bats in his belfry.

Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 16:25:58 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
Like numbers - nonexistent, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Now you're getting the idea. Good job!

So - you don't believe that there exists the
smallest prime number, right, Har, poor halfbrain?

Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

See, Harrie Bowie: I've proven the mumble
of your divine guru to be not even consistent,
and you can do nothing about it apart of
barking and spitting. But you will do what
you can for the glory of your moronic church.

gharnagel

2024-07-05 22:53:51 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.

There ya go! Maybe I'll have to get out my LoP and reread that.

Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

Indeed. He has the manners of a pig. I grew up on a farm and we often
had pigs and cows in the same corral. When cow plop happened, the pigs
came running. So I've had my say and I'm done with him.

In one of the trade journals, many years ago, someone wrote an article
as a Socratic dialog about a young man who was trying to decide whether
to become a mathematician or a scientist. One of the things Socrates
tried to draw out was the student's attitude toward certainty and
uncertainty, mathematics involving more of the former.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-06 05:08:02 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Mathematics is a human invention. Basically, it's just
counting. We count things in the real world: apples, sheep,
fingers, etc.

There ya go! Maybe I'll have to get out my LoP and reread that.

Well, in Wozzie's case we knew that already.

Indeed. He has the manners of a pig. I grew up on a farm and we often
had pigs and cows in the same corral. When cow plop happened, the pigs
came running. So I've had my say and I'm done with him.

See, trash: I've proven the mumble of your
idiot guru to be not even consistent, and you
can do nothing about it but spitting, insulting
and slandering. But you will do what you can
for the glory of your moronic church.

In one of the trade journals, many years ago, someone wrote an article
as a Socratic dialog about a young man who was trying to decide whether
to become a mathematician or a scientist. One of the things Socrates
tried to draw out was the student's attitude toward certainty and
uncertainty, mathematics involving more of the former.

And, speaking of mathematics - it's always good to
remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its
oldest, very important and successful part false -
as it didn't want to fit the madness of your insane
guru.

Thomas Heger

2024-07-05 04:53:12 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.

But real things are usually meant to consist of something.

If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.

If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to
combine GR and QM.

This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good,
because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.

Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that
particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.

I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription
and wrote my 'book' about this idea.

Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted something different than one of the usual 'materialistic'
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Sure,

So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.

no, not quite.

It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.

That is similar to other professions, say medicine:

I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.

..

TH

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 05:06:35 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't like
it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

If you take any of mathematically defined
spaces - it's built of 2 elements: a set
of something and some relation defined
about that set of something.
Applies also to "physical" space and to
spacetime.

Thomas Heger

2024-07-06 05:15:47 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't

it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

'space' in math is something else than space in physics.

If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away,
then you have a dichotomy of space and matter.

No we can make it 'relativistic' and say, that matter is timelike stable.
The opposite is spacelike stable.

This 'spacelike stable' means actually some sort of influence, but with
infinte velocity.

This 'infinite velocity' over the spacelike hyperplane is actually how
static fields behave.

What we usually call 'space' or 'universe' is actually our own past
light-cone. That lies in the middle between timelike and spacelike and
has an angle of 45° towards the axis of time.

Now we canntake the massive part of an atom (the core) and declare it to
be timelike stable, while the outside (the electrons) are connected
through static fields with the core.

This is kind of atom, hence matter, which float through space (of physics).

The mathematical space could be 'spacetime', if we assume, that points
in spacetime are certain strange numbers, which are connceted like
mulitplication and division with neighboring 'points'.

I had assumed, that spacetime could be actually a quaternion field,
where these quaternions are a certain type called 'bi-quaternions' which
are connceted to the neighborhood by something called 'Pauli algebra'.

TH

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-06 05:47:37 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
I dislike stringtheory and had no extension of that theory in

mind.

But M-theory STILL fits that description. Just because you don't

it doesn't mean it's false.

I don't think it's possible to disprove either concept.

Post by Thomas Heger
So, matter needs to be 'relativistic' and made from absolutely nothing.

Well, the quantum foam idea allows that, but the existence of such
matter doesn't last long. I think that disproves that durable matter
can come from nothing.

Frankly, I tend to disbelieve in the concept of spacetime.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to express
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical
concepts.

'space' in math is something else than space in physics.

Still most of properties apply. Otherwise
we would have a different word for that.

Post by Thomas Heger
If you regard 'space' as that what is left, if all matter is taken away,

But I don't. I'm a professional.

gharnagel

2024-07-05 12:25:34 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than

three

Post by Thomas Heger
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to

express

Post by gharnagel
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.

And space is coordinate-free.

Post by gharnagel
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.

Which is why it's not real.

Post by gharnagel
If so, we need to build particles out of these 'points', if we like to
combine GR and QM.
This sounds strange, to say the least, but is actually quite good,
because it allows such things as 'big bang' or pair-creation.

Fields seem to work okay.

Post by gharnagel
Then we need something, that could eventually behave the way, that
particles could be a substructur under a certain perspective.
I meant that a certain type of quaternions would match the discription
and wrote my 'book' about this idea.

Quaternions are mathematical concepts, not real.

Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted something different than one of the usual

'materialistic'

Post by Thomas Heger
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Sure,

So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.

no, not quite.
It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.

So you want a nonprofessional to operate on you?

Post by gharnagel
I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.
...
TH

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you like your idea too much.

"4. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because
it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge.
Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the
alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you
don’t, others will." -- Carl Sagan

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-05 13:18:44 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than

three

Post by Thomas Heger
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to

express

Post by gharnagel
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.

And space is coordinate-free.

Because a DK idiot is absolutely sure.

Thomas Heger

2024-07-06 05:53:36 UTC

Post by Thomas Heger
One unusual assumption is: points may have features and more than

three

Post by Thomas Heger
dimensions.

I think points are nonexistent. They are a mental invention to

express

Post by gharnagel
geometrical concepts, just like numbers were invented to express
mathematical concepts.

Sure: a point is actually meant as coordinate in space, hence not really
real in a coordinate free space.

And space is coordinate-free.

Post by gharnagel
But real things are usually meant to consist of something.
If spacetime is real and a smooth continuum, than spacetime would
consists of 'pointlike elements'.

Which is why it's not real.

You forgot something important:

If you say ' Which is why', you need to say: why you think so.

Whitout an explanation your ' Which is why' statement is nonsense.

iow: why do you think, that 'pointlike elements' are nonsense in a
smooth continuum?

Fields seem to work okay.

Quaternions are mathematical concepts, not real.

Post by Thomas Heger
I wanted something different than one of the usual

'materialistic'

Post by Thomas Heger
concepts, to which string-theory actually belongs.

That's where ALL of physics IS.

Sure,

So you agree that your idea is not physics? Hmmm.

no, not quite.
It's physics, but I'm not a physicist.

So you want a nonprofessional to operate on you?

Science is not medicine.

It is actually possible to think about scientific problems, even if you
are not a professional in that particular field, because you are not
treating other humans with an operation.

Post by gharnagel
I'm not a professional, but that doesn't mean, that my remedy does not heal.
...
TH

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think you like your idea too much.

Well, I try to promote my own idea. That seems to be fair and legal.

You may promote your own ideas, too, even if I would disagree.

And I really hope, you like your own ideas, even if I wouldn't.

This is an important aspect of science.
...

TH

Harens Balahovski Bian

2024-06-25 22:43:47 UTC

i always knew this guy was a dude

𝗜𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲_𝗦𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗻_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗧𝗮𝘆𝗹𝗼𝗿_𝗦𝘄𝗶𝗳𝘁_𝗼𝗿_𝗮_𝗰𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲_𝗬𝗼𝘂_𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲
https://b%69%74%63%68%75te.com/%76%69%64eo/9jH0NE7L2gUH

gay america, folks.

gharnagel

2024-07-19 02:29:59 UTC

Post by gharnagel
“spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of
something quite different.” – Steven Carlip
It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime
as an actual "fabric." It's really a mental model that
may not have any existence at all. The equations of
relativity describe what actually happens quite well,
but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
I think the things that are real are THINGS. I find the
basic concept of string theory very compelling: that is,
elementary particles are not points as the standard model
posits. In the real world there are no such things as
dimensionless points. It's a very good assumption because
the string theory particles are way smaller than we can
detect, but presuming elementary particles have extension
in space is surely correct, even though strings may not be.
Some of the things that string theory leads to, however,
are very interesting, such as M-theory and branes. The
ekpyrotic theory is one that sets forth a reason why the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe
although I disagree with a cyclic universe as presented.
Anyway, that's not necessarily a given in the theory.
The universe may still be cyclic without a contraction
(in agreement with the present information that the
expansion is accelerating). The energy for a bang comes
from the bashing of an adjacent brane into ours, as
proposed in the original theory and, if it happened once,
why couldn't it happen again? And again, and again, and
again?
This would shoot down the idea that spacetime (and space)
only extends as far as the last bang (the one nearest and
dearest to our hearts) has had time to expand.
So then the question arises: what would be the effects
of a previous bang on us? If we applied GR to that model,
might it not explain some mysteries we are dealing with?

It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
against the ideas I've presented above.

“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
– Robert A. Heinlein

OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.

All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
a way to get closer:

"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
be explained, think of all the different ways in which
it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.

"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
because it’s yours."

Lamar Kovács

2024-07-19 11:04:52 UTC

It's interesting how most physicists describe spacetime as an actual
"fabric." It's really a mental model that may not have any existence
at all. The equations of relativity describe what actually happens
quite well, but the "fabric" of spacetime may be an invention.
So then the question arises: what would be the effects of a previous
bang on us? If we applied GR to that model, might it not explain some
mysteries we are dealing with?

absolutely, me frendo. I'm glad you start undrestandind my
"𝙊𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡", whereas it's all about
the amplitude probability distribution. Such as, the "space" and time,
doesnt exists. You guys are making my theory more true than I was about to
expect. True funny indeed. You made me celebre. Thanks.

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽’𝘀_𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻_𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱_𝗯𝗲_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗘𝗨’𝘀_𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘀𝘁_𝗻𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗲
https://www.r%74.com/news/601324-trumps-return-eu-nightmare/

The change in the EU has come by placing WEF puppets in place to follow the
world elite's orders. The people never twigged to that and are now lost, as
their kindergarten leaders were never trained for confrontation and surmise
there will be conflicts with Trump.

The day Germany blocked Nord 2 was the day the EU finally capitulated to
the yanks! It only has itself to blame for what is to come.

Good, f**k the EU! Ah yes, that famous quote from the Cookie Monster
nudelman. Disgusting piece of shit, a treason to the human race.

trumps handlers are exactly the same as the liberals handlers.
They deliberately stage false opposition to themselves,
to misdirect from any actual opposition to themselves.

The entire england and NATO liberal perversion false culture, is ENFORCED,
by fake Christian "conservatives", "neo-cons", commiting war the crimes,
so that smart mouth canadiens and white liberals can have the privilege to
march around in the streets,
hiding behind impoverished blacks, and pinning the blame on conservative
"Nazi's".

trump comes from liberal New York, and hung around with every liberal
pervert in hollywood for 30 years,
before he starting playing fake-Nazi.

How are we defining the word "LIBERAL"?
Where do you think that criminal culture comes from?

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-20 06:12:50 UTC

It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
against the ideas I've presented above.
“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.
All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
be explained, think of all the different ways in which
it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
because it’s yours."

If there's any good theory at all,
it's the one of them.

gharnagel

2024-07-20 13:04:49 UTC

Post by gharnagel
It seems that everyone is married to their own vision.
That's fine, but it seems to me that they should start
their own thread to discuss it. Then everyone can decide
if they want to discuss it there. I want arguments
against the ideas I've presented above.
“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.”
– Robert A. Heinlein
OTOH, I never learned much from an idiot, either.
All ideas fall short of reality, so Carl Sagan suggested
"Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to
be explained, think of all the different ways in which
it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you
might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among “multiple working
hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right
answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just
because it’s yours."

If there's any good theory at all,
it's the one of them.

It seems to be an evolution. Hypothesis A explains facts
of Group A observations, but leads to Group B observations
which require Hypothesis B, ...
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

Tathan Hébert

2024-07-20 14:01:06 UTC

Post by gharnagel
It seems to be an evolution. Hypothesis A explains facts
of Group A observations, but leads to Group B observations
which require Hypothesis B, ...
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

hey listen up, 𝗝𝗼𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗛𝗲_𝗜𝘀_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗧𝗼_‘𝗣𝗮𝘀𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗕𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗻’_
𝘁𝗼_𝗞𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗮_𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀
https://th%65%70%65%6f%70%6c%65%73%76oice.tv/joe-biden-says-he-is-preparing-to-pass-the-baton-to-kamala-harris/

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-20 16:36:31 UTC

If there's any good theory at all,
it's the one of them.

It seems to be an evolution. Hypothesis A explains facts
of Group A observations, but leads to Group B observations
which require Hypothesis B, ...
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

Well, a Theory of Everything, traditionally in the West it's
a form of, "Mathematical Platonism", that a "Theory of Everything",
includes that idea that there's "A-Theory", a theory at all,
that's "constant consistent complete concrete", that there's
theory at all.

Then, these days are arrived at things like "well it must be
least action so let's call it sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials",
or that any "Prime Mover" is all the usual sort of omni-everything,
and whose work may be already done, that if there's a gradient
at all, there's one of them, and we can call it "Time" and with
regards to "Space" muchly the gravity of the things, while it
may be so that it's more "gravific" like Fatio/LeSage instead
of the usual notion of pull gravity by massy bodies constantly
doing work either pulling other objects or the metrics of the
coordinates of the geodesy itself, either way being same.

So, "gravity" is not even included in modern GR and the Newtonian,
while in QM it's that "it's a field theory" and "it's a gauge theory",
then as with regards to "the real fields are the total potential
fields" and "it's a smooth continuous manifold and a continuum
mechanics".

So, "The Theory" sort of has to balance both including pretty much
everything, while doing pretty much nothing.

Then, it's figured the easiest way that is arrives from some
"axiomless natural deduction" then for example to an "axiomless
geometry" that includes logic and all then geometry and all,
then for the study of the Universe our Space-Time, about this
its contents Matter, Charge, light's motion, and nuclear lifetime,
with matter and charge and infinite velocity and infinite state,
all sort of being one theory, then that the idea is that
the hologrammatic Universe's Space-Time continuum, arrives
at three space dimensions particularly just because of the
infinity and infinitesimals of a one dimension of continuity,
then that time is just the prime aspect of this "gradient",
thusly that it's all quite simple how it unfolds in a
"Strong Mathematical Platonist's Universe Hypothesis"
including "stronger logical positivism with a thorough
metaphysics of a constant consistent complete concrete
theory".

"A Theory", a theory at all.

Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.

gharnagel

2024-07-20 18:57:51 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.

Aye, there's the rub.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it
doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree
with experiment, it's wrong." -- Richard P. Feynman

And there may well be a lot of experimental evidence
that goes beyond our theories.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-20 19:20:06 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.

Aye, there's the rub.

And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
is not scientific.

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-20 21:09:43 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.

Aye, there's the rub.

And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
is not scientific.

No, no, no no no, the theory: must be a true theory,
that there is one at all then there's the teleological
side, which some mathematical platonists call the
theory of logical and mathematical relation that exists
to be discovered, and the phenomenological side, of which
our scientific method and philosophy makes for us
a science.

I.e. "it", can not, "ignore", the theory, nor the data.

Now, it's key to consider that there's a complement to
the phenomenological of the merely sensual and the
apparatus of detectors in the sampling/measurement/observation,
that being detecting an event, measuring it, and measuring
it over time, where all events are the things and the things
are the events, in time-series data, that a complement to
the merely sensual is an "object sense", which includes only
a few things, a "word sense", a "number sense", a "time sense",
and a sense of "the continuum", so that we can equip the
model physicists, who is blind mentally except for the
phenomenological and the play-book of the theory, equip
the model physicist with a merest "object sense", so that
numbers including "the continuum" and "infinity" as objects
of reason, then can be attached to universals of the physical
theory, as universals of the mental theory of the faculties
of the reasoning.

A "Theory of Everything" has to first be a "mathematical
theory of everything".

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-20 21:21:35 UTC

Post by gharnagel
Are we getting closer to a TOE?

"A Theory", a theory at all.
Of course it has to work with all the data of all the
scientific experiments of all time.

Aye, there's the rub.

And, of course, it can ignore the reality, as it
is not scientific.

No, no, no no no, the theory: must be a true theory,

Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be. If the reality won't
fit it - you will just scream "IMPROPER!!!
NONSTANDARD!!!!" or alike.

gharnagel

2024-07-20 23:28:39 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be.

Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.

And since the reality does fit it - The dishonest,
disinformation manipulator just screams lies, like
"IMPROPER!!! NONSTANDARD!!!!"

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-21 03:58:56 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be.

Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.

And it's because the fit is so good
why you had to delete GPS clocks from
the reality, right, poor halfbrain?

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-21 04:31:41 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Anyone can check GPS and see how true
your theories must be.

Yes they can, and the fit is pretty good.
And since the reality does fit it - The dishonest,
disinformation manipulator just screams lies, like
"IMPROPER!!! NONSTANDARD!!!!"

Here's one, "you know why the Lense-Thirring and
the v_e are about the same?" "Terrestrially
they can't tell apart the equivalence principle
of the forces the gravitational and the acceleration".

Or, GPS, blocks, "the receivers are given a particularly
precise frequency and here's is why", and here's is why
is there's mass-produced about a billion of them and
it's much less complicated to steer the satellites
than re-run the geodetic survey every day.

"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"
Because space-time in space-contraction varies,
sort of like a geodetic survey, yet it's the
survey of the ephemeris, not just providing
triangulations for Earthlings to count their
10,000 steps to the burrito palace, but feeding
back ephemeris to keep the 29+ variables futzed
of the "Parameterized Post-Newtonian" up-to-date.

So it's sort of a false dichotomy about the GR
and the GPS because while it _is_ in accords
with an interpretation of GR like later Einstein's
with space contraction in effect, it _isn't_
much giving the Parameterized Post-Newtonian
ephemeris of Earth, and its surrounds,
"global positioning".

Then, Maciej comes across as a flake, yet,
most are sort of know-nothings, or, you know,
"coffee-table book physics of the last century".

Everybody's real proud of JWST, it's totally paint-canned
inflationary theory and definitely brought it up to
where MOND and then sort of reverse MOND definitely
fits better with less missing matter, and, then there's
also the more of the "moving stars" and so on.

Then Relativity is just de-constructed a bit to its
principles, or, you know, good bones, and pretty much
later Einstein's is just fine, yet he did take away a
lot of what people were brought up on as "the thought
experiments".

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-21 06:21:25 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".

And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-21 20:36:22 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",
as it's always a "Mathematical Physics", and regardless
whether the mathematical interpretation lines up with
the physical interpretation lines up with the data,
it's always a mathematical physics and there's the
ubiquitous success of mathematics in physics, thusly,
any foundations of physics or "the theory" demands
a foundations of mathematics the "the theory".

"A Theory"

So, foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics
go together indubitably, and especially as to how there
are multiple law(s) of large numbers (infinity, infinitesimals)
and continuity, with respect to all such matters of continuum
mechanics, including the quantized version the quantum mechanics.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

So, mathematics _owes_ physics better (and, less) mathematical
models, to automatically equip the physical models, to
result better.

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-22 02:53:59 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

Maciej Wozniak

2024-07-22 19:23:09 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",

Stop fucking. Your idiot guru has announced
the oldest part of math false, as it didn't
want to fit his madness. And instead he
invented another, more obedient.

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-22 19:52:32 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

Well, at least a "Theory of Everything" must start
with a "logical, mathematical theory a foundations",

Stop fucking. Your idiot guru has announced
the oldest part of math false, as it didn't
want to fit his madness. And instead he
invented another, more obedient.

Ah, what you might say, is, that he described the
various coordinate systems, where everything is
orthogonal, and metrified, and that whatever arbitrary
conformal mapping results continuous geometry there is,
between those, that that's all there is to it.

I.e., Einstein himself defended himself from his
followers, by amending his stated opinion, in for
example "Out of My Later Years" his last word on these
matters, to result that such completions that result
from infinite expressions, result a continuous manifold
of the differential-system of inertial-systems that is
Einstein's "Relativity".

So, the contrived mathematics, automatically get equipped,
with the completions, vis-a-vis, "classical in the limit",
"flat in the limit", "continuous in the limit", of the
various limits, of various law(s) of large numbers,
whatever they may be.

The "non-Euclidean geometries", are just whatever framing
of conformal mappings result, for the sake of convenience,
not as of a "principle" or "law" or "the theory", Einstein's
(of not Einsteiniana's and quite directly not "the SR-ians'").

So, that's "the idiots' guru", not, "the guru idiot", as
a guru of idiots not the other way around. Now, as I say
this, it is to be sure that acquaintance with the theories
of space-time and other aspects of physics particularly the
particle-wave duality are indicators of learned people
everywhere, and there's a big difference between learned
people with an intuitive exposure to the concepts, and
hypocrites of the fake-it-'til-you-make-it sort, or
the cargo-cult of what is called the coat-tailing paper-hangers.

That is to say, Einstein quite well amended his condensed,
refined opinion on these matters, and it's a continuum mechanics.

Thomas Heger

2024-07-23 06:48:10 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson
"Why do GPS satellites both have clocks and receive
timing information from the ground station?"

Explaining "why they do" is - most unfortunately -
not changing the fact that they do. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru. So it was announced
"a collection of prejudices".
And as for your theory of everything - any
engineer can tell you: a tool for everyhing is
useful for nothing. Well, you may always
hope for an exception.

No, there is no 'must'.

Nature will tell us how nature works. If there are mathematical
principle involved, we will find out.

But 'mathematical principles' is not necessarily among the foundations
of nature.

We as human beings will have most likely problems, to reproduce the
mathematical principles of nature (supposed there are any),anyhow,
because nature is using means, which we cannot imitate.

There is for instance massive parallel processing and infinite time,
which are means, that humans do not have.

So, our mathematical modells need to simplify things, to allow some sort
of meaningful calculations, while nature has all the time in the world
and as many 'processors' as wanted.

Also our knowledge is restricted to the observable part of the universe,
while nature can and will use all information that exists.

So our possibilities are restricted to what we can model in math, while
nature could use all sorts of other things.

TH

Post by Ross Finlayson
"A Theory"
So, foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics
go together indubitably, and especially as to how there
are multiple law(s) of large numbers (infinity, infinitesimals)
and continuity, with respect to all such matters of continuum
mechanics, including the quantized version the quantum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
So, mathematics _owes_ physics better (and, less) mathematical
models, to automatically equip the physical models, to
result better.

Ross Finlayson

2024-07-23 20:03:03 UTC