Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Post by Ross A. Finlayson Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
No, you are mentally ill.
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.
I am somewhat glad that you are asking.
I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
eventually, and soon, make an appointment.
I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
configuration in experiment, […]”
Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
*at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).
“I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”
This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
to form a *coherent* statement or question.
The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
“inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
_model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
YouTube: Fermilab. http://youtu.be/bZdvSJyHvUU
Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
tested by future cosmological observations.”
Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
“or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”
That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.
That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.
That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
what you are arguing.)
That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.
And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.
So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
author from reality.
All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
*writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
Since Hubble was mostly the notion "everywhere redshift". But, these days, it's not
so, since the configuration of experiment (the sky survey for 2MASS and outside
Laniakea the local supercluster), is much closer "even redshift/blueshift". If you
didn't know that, then you would have no context that "revisit Hubble" meant that
"since Hubble's old observation was long-standing but it's been falsified, now all
the derivations in the development of theory, basically have to be revisited with
respect to that while our local supercluster is a large feature and much expanding
or with apparent redshift, now it's known instead that models of inflation, or,
"what explains why the universe appears to be expanding, with usual models of
a Big Bang and then heat/cold/death/crunch", that they are just a form of extrapolation,
theories of inflation, and that furthermore after "revisit Hubble" is for Lemaitre (corr.) or
Big Bang Theory, also thusly to revisit Bondi/Hoyle and Steady State theory.
So, you see, according to configuration of experiment, what over time we know
sees that in ergy of experiment as primary configuration that atoms look smaller
and the universe looks bigger, that again with respect to these running constants,
what I wrote above is validated again here.
If you didn't know that then you would've had no context, to make sense of things,
but also you should check that in case you're not infallible, maybe you just don't
have enough context to be making sense of the extra pieces I've put here for my
foundational approach, for a usual suggestion that there is extra context to
make sense of it.
Also my form and style though long-winded is grammatical and I'm also opinionated,
About the "real wave-function" of course I meant "wave-function collapse is real",
if you'll please excuse that "wave-function" is as usually arrives at "what solves
the wave function in configuration space as it were is its 'collapse' and is real
with respect to Boehm over Copenhagen and a usual 'statistical' interpretation".
I.e., again that my extra opinion isn't necessarily usual, but, once again it's totally
usual in a theory of a "real wave-function" as it were. (Revisit Heisenberg.)
So, I hope you'll consider that this extra context provides instead what you
would find without it, not sense, instead, not non-sense. I.e. "everywhere
red-shift isn't a fact means revisit Hubble, theories of inflation, ...", "wave-function
is real besides statistical means revisit Heisenberg, what means Pauli, ...". The
Bohm-deBroglie theory or varieties are having made quite a renaissance in
some recent years, for example that "revisit Heisenberg" is _well underway_.
About Higgs then and what generates mass is a notion of a unified field theory
what has the strong nuclear force, which Lahn you may recall from our earlier
discussion is a usual force, same as "fall gravity", which is a type of a "shadow
gravity" theory or so and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum
mechanics, is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs", which is among my
usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.
I.e., as an individual with my own content and context, in this forum of opinions
in physics, mathematical, it is an extra burden both to read the posts, then what
results as that the work of explaining these ... theories in physics, lightens the
burden, from that for a theory of Foundations there's only one, and that I
happen to have one, here, and by here I mean in 10,000 posts on mathematics,
logic, and physics.
So, "Well-order the reals", and, "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs".
(Sometimes it might help where I write "what" that you should read it as "that what"
instead, if it's not a question word.)
About Higgs then
what generates mass
is a notion of a unified field theory
what has the strong nuclear force,
which Lahn you may recall from our earlier discussion is a usual force,
same as "fall gravity",
which is a type of a "shadow gravity" theory or so
and besides a quantum theory because it's based in continuum mechanics,
[About Higgs then] is again for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs",
which is among my usual refrains on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity for some time.
Also nobody has any retorts anymore for my mathematical theory or
"line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity are three replete
models of continuous domains besides the usual field continuity".
(Or they don't know them.)
So, thank you for pointing out "item A here makes no sense in this context which is so",
that's much better than "item A here requires a context not present, it's insane".
Then, please consider as above here directly addressing your points, why I have put
it as so, and will continue to do so, as I have already done so, that I hope it does so, thank you.
(My usual only style in replies is to quote the entirety and post a contiguous
following reply: it helps keep the context in context. Also my usual style is that
as soon as I post a definition or refer to a fact at all, it's integrated to the context,
as I should be so happy to explain, even if I already did.)
Ah, then back to constants: let's feel free to get back to this thread's
topic of why c is "normalized" in some theories interpreting SR, to 1, unity.
(...For example as I have explained above and what it means in theories
where c_g >= c.)
Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
self-contained, in definition.
... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.