censorship

[imagine]

If anyone is interested, here goes:

 

it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems.

 

The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed.

 

It is very sad.

 

The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied

by mediators who are not participants.

 

If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions)

 

I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent.

Edited September 6, 2008 by swansont
Copied post; separated the suggestion from the speculation

[swansont]

Copied (not moved) from "New" hoverboard science thread in a brutal act of censorship.

 

If anyone is interested, here goes:

 

it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems.

 

If we go by Einstein's other writings as a guide, he would have posted equations in support of his thesis. When you have valid math, it eliminates the need for handwaving.

 

If it were the special relativity that he was posting, there's the possibility he might have actually learned a few things that he was unaware of at the time he published, like being told of Lorentz's work

 

 

The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed.

 

It is very sad.

 

Yawn.

 

Bottom line: science works. The "show me the evidence" attitude (i.e. "put up or shut up") is one thing that separates the scientist from the crackpot. It's a hurdle the latter cannot jump, so what we get is complaints.

 

The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied

by mediators who are not participants.

 

Science is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. "Fair" is not the same as treating each idea as if it it has equal intrinsic merit. An idea has merit in proportion to how much support (in the forms of descriptive math and scientific evidence) you can give it.

 

Posts are moved to ensure that those with support are not confused with those without, for any readers who might not be able to readily discern the difference.

 

 

If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions)

 

So it's the semantics that bother you. You agree your "newly discovered" physics is a challenge to orthodox thinking?

[Sayonara]

Imagine, this approach is tiresome and fruitless. We have al lseen it before and nobody is in the slightest bit impressed or convinced.

 

What you see as "censorship", is a system designed to differentiate between science, and unsupported ideas. And it works. If your posts fall into the latter category and not the former, that is YOUR problem. If you want to make a scientific proposal but aren't sure how it is YOUR responsibility to find out.

 

You will not get anywhere with the "oh I am so persecuted" routine, as I have already told you.

[YT2095]

how DARE YOU accuse us of Censorship!

Thread Closed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding

[Bettina]

...."pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated.

 

I agree with you 100%. It separates the wacko from someone who has an interesting idea.

 

Bee

[foodchain]

Censored realities are neat, just kidding. I can see if its something starting a flame war, but hey don’t gag me or anything for saying that.

[ajb]

If you have an interesting idea that can be formulated with an established mathematical framework (or an extension there of) and potentially be of interest within physics, be it phenomenologically, or it could be an investigation of a mechanism or construction using "toy models" or it could be general methods and constructions, then I see no reason for it not be allowed in the physics sections. In science we do have the freedom to be creative and try new things, but they must be well founded and well motivated.

 

However, most of peoples interesting ideas are simply not like that. Either they stem from a misunderstanding of established ideas or they have not done their homework to found out what the established ideas are.

[swansont]

If you have an interesting idea that can be formulated with an established mathematical framework (or an extension there of) and potentially be of interest within physics, be it phenomenologically, or it could be an investigation of a mechanism or construction using "toy models" or it could be general methods and constructions, then I see no reason for it not be allowed in the physics sections. In science we do have the freedom to be creative and try new things, but they must be well founded and well motivated.

 

However, most of peoples interesting ideas are simply not like that. Either they stem from a misunderstanding of established ideas or they have not done their homework to found out what the established ideas are.

 

When and if that should ever happen, I tend to agree. (correct math, that is. Attempts at e.g. disproving relativity sometimes include math, but it's invariably flawed)

 

The line between physics and speculations can be fuzzy. A dubious speculation that gets corrected, with no demand from the originator that he was right, generally should stay in the science section. If, however, the originator continues to post erroneous or unsubstantiated material, it goes into speculations.

 

Posts moved to speculation are partly a matter of attitude. Very generally, in the former situation the poster is ignorant and wants to learn. The post may be in the form of a statement, but is really a question that gets answered. In the latter, the poster is convinced he's right, and wants to teach the rest of us the error of our ways. The material is a declaration of "new science," with or without the invective about science and scientists.

[imagine]

I have been censored by Sayonara. He is afraid of having a fair discussion. My door is open. Peace be with you. Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify my thoughts in certain matters, and stimulating the discovery of "quantum derivative".

 

There is apparently lot of misunderstanding at this website.

 

"Space differentiation" is something you guys have a lot to learn about, it appears.

The climber phenomenon is real, I have experienced it.

[Sayonara]

I have been censored by Sayonara. He is afraid of having a fair discussion.

Yes, I am positively quaking in my slippers at the prospect. Fair discussion would destroy everything I stand for and also possibly cause me to become so aghast that I drop my monocle.

[Mr Skeptic]

it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems.

 

Trouble is, there are lots of Einstein wannabes that forget that they don't even know what science is but think they are very clever. If Einstein didn't provide proof that he was right, then no one would have believed him.

 

Do you think that you are better than Einstein, and that people will believe you immediately and without proof?

 

The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed.

 

Yes, good riddance to Aristotle and his disciples.

 

The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied

by mediators who are not participants.

 

You are a complete moron, and a waste of webspace. Clearly, the best explanation is that God did it.

 

People would say stuff like the above all the time if it weren't for the tireless work of the mods in keeping this place worth talking in.

 

If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions)

 

That has been suggested many times and discussed a lot. However, that would force the mods to label someone's work "speculation" or "pseudoscience", which could result in mislabeling and angering the poster, since the line between speculations and pseudoscience is so fuzzy.

 

I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent.

 

Why thank you.

 

I have been censored by Sayonara. He is afraid of having a fair discussion. My door is open. Peace be with you. Thanks for providing the opportunity to clarify my thoughts in certain matters, and stimulating the discovery of "quantum derivative".

 

The only mod I've ever seen here who might be overdoing their mod powers is Pangloss, but to be fair, things are frequently fuzzy yet emotionally charged in the politics section where he frequents. If you've been "censored" by Sayonara, than I suggest you stop posting garbage. In case you were wondering, revolutionary new theories that explain everything and yet have no evidence or maths, are considered garbage.

 

There is apparently lot of misunderstanding at this website.

 

"Space differentiation" is something you guys have a lot to learn about, it appears.

The climber phenomenon is real, I have experienced it.

 

If we don't know about space differentiation, it is because no one taught us. Can you explain the maths of it, please?

[imagine]

Wot av we 'ere then?

?

 

for what it is worth (yes, I can explain the maths of space differentiation, which has only just been found this week ! ):

 

the proposed "new branch of physics" which is claimed to be "the science of GRIP" and can also be called "centrifugal force" or "the inverse of electro-magnetism" (i.e. "magno-electricity" or a name I've seen somewhere that happens to fit: "electro-gravity" (i.e. generalising gravity) (and given the discovery that "gravity" apparently =

the general measurement of space (i.e. the general metry of space i.e. the geometry of space)(so generalising gravity = the specific measuring of "space" i.e. "where to draw the line")(or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" i.e. Weighing things up i.e. "a constant pressure differential" i.e. "inflation theoretical" );

 

 

 

I worked out the formal structure of this proposed branch of physics which I posted as four space-time diagrams (of which one is 4 sub-diagrams) where each diagram is closely related to each of the four Maxwell equations of electro-magnetism.

 

In this subject one may wonder what is math; what is physics.

The climber experiment was real, a substantial effect, the real evidence you can experience yourself (but need a wall about 23 degrees beyond vertical (so 113 degrees) and sufficiently weak arms that even though the holds are good, when you stop for a rest 40ft up you cannot but help notice the astonishing "extra" rest you get i.e. the temporary apparent weakening of the pull of gravity.

 

If it is true that a "weighted" bowl presses less on the ground than a non-weighted bowl; in bowling a heavy bowling ball; then an experiment could be devised to test that. Be interesting to figure out how to do that.

 

Also; possibly not properly part of this subject: but suppose that you dropped two blocks of highly-vibratiional material simultaneously, but one had been set vibrating via a sudden pattern of collision with other items each side; and if the internally vibrating block fell slower than the other block, that would be interesting.

 

The only solid evidence so far is the climbing result; and possibly the skidding meteorite theory as I know where such a "gravitational semi-conductor" was found.

 

The math, at least what looks like math; I didn't have till I came to this forum; it is quite amazing so here it is to entertain and delight:

 

(The scientists at CERN are possibly about to discover this subject; so perhaps you might like to tell them about it)(!)(fabric of the universe: space differentiation: path integrals in hyperspace; fun as! )

 

 

 

What is a derivative?

 

"Derived from"

 

e.g. "contained within"

 

What is "quantum derivative"?

 

It is "meeting contained within"

 

So quantum derivative of "x squared"

can be drawn as a square of two sides marked "x" that requires a third side (or multiplicity of additional "sides")

 

i.e. room for + or - in defning "x times x".

 

(Note: x squared already has an unknown that is fully differentiated and integrated as a flattening of x-space (so the quantum derivative of x cubed is just "x squared" given that it is by definition you have a meeting contained within x cubed of every way x squared can happen consistent with keeping aligned with x squared i.e. the quantum derivative of x cubed is a kind of volumetric view of x squared)(i.e. it differentiates the space in x cubed as a singularity (or cross-over minimum requirement) being x squared )

 

Looking at quantum derivative of x squared i.e. a meeting contained within x squared:

 

this requires a third aspect in defining "x squared"; and this third aspect must "evenly differentiate the space in x squared".

 

So there needs to be room for + or - in defining "x times x".

 

"x" has 2 views (the two sides of the square in drawn form) in "x squared"; plus or minus the role of the unknown (the unknown was introduced to create a "meeting contained within x squared") ; so a bias is possible to one of the "x" 's in "x squared".

 

(This apparently involves the science of how a pebble gets its shape; through a multiplicity of collisions in a wave-action environment)

 

There is a possible bias or difference in one of the "x"'s in "x squared"; this bias is caused by the possibility that the unknown has more effect on one "x" than the other.

 

If the first "x" is quantifiably different than the second "x"; then the second "x" is already different from the first.

 

So you need to define the second "x" in the meeting of the two "x"s in "x squared:" in the space "unknown" as "+ or - the role of the unknown" in order to balance out any bias that occurs from the effect of the unknown on the first x automatically defining BOTH x's as different (causing immediate inflation towards u)(so creating "hyperspace");

 

and thus, whatever happens; there is still going to be a possible bias towards "u" (the unknown) even when both x's are balancing!

 

 

So the whole "second x package" can be added or subtracted to the first x system, to allow "u" to have two "x-factors".

 

 

 

That is to allow "u" to be floating in "x squared".

 

The quantum derivative; that is; the meeting contained within; "x squared" (so requiring an unknown "u" to provide this meeting potential; so requiring at least a cube or expansion into at least one new dimension of x-squared space)

is written:

 

qd x squared = x(2+u) + or - x(2-u)

 

 

(a) the "u" refers to the unknown introduced to give the two "x"s room to meet another way; so that a meeting is contained within x squared

 

(synonomous with "larger hadron collider"... or "near the speed of light")

(near the comparison of comparison)(one bias)

 

 

(b) the "2" refers to the 2 perspectives inherent in x-squared from a x,x,u perspective (i.e,. where these perspectives are all interchangeable so allow room for floatation)

 

(could be synonomous with "Michelson Morley experiment" or "diagonal")(two mirrors opposite each other)(no bias except a perfect distribution i.e. a constant change in direction i.e. spin)

 

In x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (Michio Kaku's dreamed-of two-inch equation for a hyper-space by-pass! ? )

 

the first "x package" gave linear factors

i.e. assume "u" and "x" were in perfect alignment

but the other "x" could disturb this (so an "uncertainty principle" as a "round" flattening of space i.e. "directional sorting")

 

so this other x has to be a perfect mirror on what the first x does regarding "u" to

ensure mutual factors

 

i.e. a 3d minimum in defining the "assembly" of x,x,u reverses the factors and pushes them out in to 3d (or more?) producing a quantum derivative!

[Klaynos]

The above is NOT a mathematical derivation of your idea, it's not even maths. What you posted in the other thread after I asked for maths was NOT maths. You're just playing with words. Have a read of Einstein's 1905 papers, they're a good insight into mathematical derivations.

 

And as previously mentioned if Einstein had posted about say SR here he would have found out about the work of Lorentz et al who's transformations also appear in SR...

[Mr Skeptic]

Wot av we 'ere then?

?

 

for what it is worth (yes, I can explain the maths of space differentiation, which has only just been found this week ! ):

 

Um...

 

the proposed "new branch of physics" which is claimed to be "the science of GRIP" and can also be called "centrifugal force" or "the inverse of electro-magnetism" (i.e. "magno-electricity" or a name I've seen somewhere that happens to fit: "electro-gravity" (i.e. generalising gravity) (and given the discovery that "gravity" apparently =

the general measurement of space (i.e. the general metry of space i.e. the geometry of space)(so generalising gravity = the specific measuring of "space" i.e. "where to draw the line")(or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics" i.e. Weighing things up i.e. "a constant pressure differential" i.e. "inflation theoretical" );

 

 

 

I worked out the formal structure of this proposed branch of physics which I posted as four space-time diagrams (of which one is 4 sub-diagrams) where each diagram is closely related to each of the four Maxwell equations of electro-magnetism.

 

In this subject one may wonder what is math; what is physics.

The climber experiment was real, a substantial effect, the real evidence you can experience yourself (but need a wall about 23 degrees beyond vertical (so 113 degrees) and sufficiently weak arms that even though the holds are good, when you stop for a rest 40ft up you cannot but help notice the astonishing "extra" rest you get i.e. the temporary apparent weakening of the pull of gravity.

 

If it is true that a "weighted" bowl presses less on the ground than a non-weighted bowl; in bowling a heavy bowling ball; then an experiment could be devised to test that. Be interesting to figure out how to do that.

 

Also; possibly not properly part of this subject: but suppose that you dropped two blocks of highly-vibratiional material simultaneously, but one had been set vibrating via a sudden pattern of collision with other items each side; and if the internally vibrating block fell slower than the other block, that would be interesting.

 

The only solid evidence so far is the climbing result; and possibly the skidding meteorite theory as I know where such a "gravitational semi-conductor" was found.

 

Not sure what to say about that, other than that climbing and meteorites are quite well understood with clasical physics.

 

The math, at least what looks like math; I didn't have till I came to this forum; it is quite amazing so here it is to entertain and delight:

 

How did anyone convince you without the maths?

 

(The scientists at CERN are possibly about to discover this subject; so perhaps you might like to tell them about it)(!)(fabric of the universe: space differentiation: path integrals in hyperspace; fun as! )

 

I doubt that.

 

What is a derivative?

 

"Derived from"

 

e.g. "contained within"

 

I don't see how "contained within" follows from "derived from" in any physical sense.

 

In maths, the derivative of a function f is defined as the limit of [math]\frac{f(x+\Delta x) - f(x)}{\Delta x}[/math] as delta x tends toward zero.

 

See here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Derivative.html

 

What is "quantum derivative"?

 

It is "meeting contained within"

 

I've never heard of such definition. What is a meeting then?

 

So quantum derivative of "x squared"

can be drawn as a square of two sides marked "x" that requires a third side (or multiplicity of additional "sides")

 

i.e. room for + or - in defning "x times x".

 

(Note: x squared already has an unknown that is fully differentiated and integrated as a flattening of x-space (so the quantum derivative of x cubed is just "x squared" given that it is by definition you have a meeting contained within x cubed of every way x squared can happen consistent with keeping aligned with x squared i.e. the quantum derivative of x cubed is a kind of volumetric view of x squared)(i.e. it differentiates the space in x cubed as a singularity (or cross-over minimum requirement) being x squared )

 

Looking at quantum derivative of x squared i.e. a meeting contained within x squared:

 

this requires a third aspect in defining "x squared"; and this third aspect must "evenly differentiate the space in x squared".

 

So there needs to be room for + or - in defining "x times x".

 

"x" has 2 views (the two sides of the square in drawn form) in "x squared"; plus or minus the role of the unknown (the unknown was introduced to create a "meeting contained within x squared") ; so a bias is possible to one of the "x" 's in "x squared".

 

(This apparently involves the science of how a pebble gets its shape; through a multiplicity of collisions in a wave-action environment)

 

There is a possible bias or difference in one of the "x"'s in "x squared"; this bias is caused by the possibility that the unknown has more effect on one "x" than the other.

 

If the first "x" is quantifiably different than the second "x"; then the second "x" is already different from the first.

 

So you need to define the second "x" in the meeting of the two "x"s in "x squared:" in the space "unknown" as "+ or - the role of the unknown" in order to balance out any bias that occurs from the effect of the unknown on the first x automatically defining BOTH x's as different (causing immediate inflation towards u)(so creating "hyperspace");

 

and thus, whatever happens; there is still going to be a possible bias towards "u" (the unknown) even when both x's are balancing!

 

 

So the whole "second x package" can be added or subtracted to the first x system, to allow "u" to have two "x-factors".

 

 

 

That is to allow "u" to be floating in "x squared".

 

The quantum derivative; that is; the meeting contained within; "x squared" (so requiring an unknown "u" to provide this meeting potential; so requiring at least a cube or expansion into at least one new dimension of x-squared space)

is written:

 

qd x squared = x(2+u) + or - x(2-u)

 

So then qd x squared = 4x or 2u; it is much easier when you simplify.

 

(a) the "u" refers to the unknown introduced to give the two "x"s room to meet another way; so that a meeting is contained within x squared

 

(synonomous with "larger hadron collider"... or "near the speed of light")

(near the comparison of comparison)(one bias)

 

 

(b) the "2" refers to the 2 perspectives inherent in x-squared from a x,x,u perspective (i.e,. where these perspectives are all interchangeable so allow room for floatation)

 

(could be synonomous with "Michelson Morley experiment" or "diagonal")(two mirrors opposite each other)(no bias except a perfect distribution i.e. a constant change in direction i.e. spin)

 

In x(2+u) + or - x(2-u) (Michio Kaku's dreamed-of two-inch equation for a hyper-space by-pass! ? )

 

the first "x package" gave linear factors

i.e. assume "u" and "x" were in perfect alignment

but the other "x" could disturb this (so an "uncertainty principle" as a "round" flattening of space i.e. "directional sorting")

 

so this other x has to be a perfect mirror on what the first x does regarding "u" to

ensure mutual factors

 

i.e. a 3d minimum in defining the "assembly" of x,x,u reverses the factors and pushes them out in to 3d (or more?) producing a quantum derivative!

 

Maybe it would be easier to just give a link to whoever explained the maths to you.

[DrP]

Um...

Maybe it would be easier to just give a link to whoever explained the maths to you.

 

He discovered it himself - just this week you know.

[ajb]

You have a more general notion of a derivative on an algebra as a first order operator that satisfies a Leibniz rule. Unless your derivative is like this then it is not what anyone else would call a derivative. That is you have chosen very poor nomenclature.

[imagine]

Thank you. I'm short of time, need to travel so very briefly:

 

"Playing with words" is a relatively common complaint. Who says you cannot solve problems this way? (I explained my method in "math-free analysis". It is a bit like how Sudoku puzzles work)

 

(I was inspired incidentally, by a movie "Monster's Inc." and the wisecracking conversations between Mike and Sully)(And also by the explanation of how words are defined in the book "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers; among other things. Re: John Hospers: how do you define an elephant? Stand at a zoo and point at an elephant? Said to be too narrow- what about other elephants? "something with four legs"? Too wide, surely? What about zebras, or even tables, they have four legs. This "broadening and narrowing" I found fitted the pattern "electro-magnetism"; sets that intersect (narrowing) then broaden via overlap with another set

in higher dimensional space )

 

I didn't quote other people at length, I don't get resources for searching for them plus my methods allow me to discover things very fast. This freaks out people? who cannot believe how much can be done with one's own sensitivity to one's ability to be aware of reality......?

 

 

The maths I discovered as you know this week. That doesn't make me a bigwig; the universe is an open book to anyone who wants to read it.

 

Quoting: "In maths, the derivative of a function f is defined as the limit of f(x + delta x) - f(x)/ delta x; as delta x tends toward zero."

 

Analysing this (simplifying it to apparent minimum essential defining criteria; finding common ground between patterns and differentiating them as different aspects of the common ground by typically one-step only):

 

function = group

delta x = change in x

x + change in x = two views of x

 

Since "function" already involves "group" so at least two views of x;

function (x + change in x) = two views of bracketed two views, so at least three views of x

 

- f(x) = - at least two views of x

 

so f(x + delta x) - f(x) = at least three views of x - at least two views of x

 

which = the ability to flip x i.e. to turn x upside down i.e. to carry x around i.e. to treat x as an exchangeable unit i.e. x's ability to divide through itself so implies another dimension to x;

 

this whole thing was divided by x so that gives

 

x divisible, divided by x

 

= another dimension to x, divided by x

 

= a space factor of x

 

i.e. how x integrates with something else

 

which is the local limit in defining x as x tends to zero

 

but since the phrase "limit ......as x tend to zero" is already used then this gives

 

twice this pattern so

 

how x "integrates" with something else in 2 dimensions

 

i.e. how x can have factors

 

i.e. quite l i t e r a l l y

THE DERIVATIVE OF x!

 

Another Nobel prize given me by you guys. Incredible. I didn't know this till you "told" me.

 

(In conversations, each party tells the other all kinds of stuff they may not even realise is there, like a higher dimensional code; you can receive anything if you put aside prejudices as much as you can, it seems- or ...?)(Here what happened though was I just logically analysed what Mr. Skeptic quite plainly said; and without knowing whether it would pan out, the answer arrived consistent with the word "derivative" as being an appropriate word for the formal mathematical description Mr. Skeptic gave).

[iNow]

What's the lexicon equivalent of numerology?

[imagine]

"numerology": treating numbers as if they have "magical powers"?; as if they have meaning, like words do?

 

"Lexicon equivalent of numerology": treating words as if....as if what? as if they have meaning---- words already have meaning; so as if they have 2 meanings? Similes?

 

Similes are supposed to be similar in meaning to words; what I do is look for "essential defining criteria in patterns of information"; this can be done without words incidentally.

 

Interesting comment, however.

 

 

 

"Function" incorporates the simple pattern "group": a social function does (that's kind of like a simile, i.e. "social function" vis-a-vis "math-function"?) Math function requires distributing the item about which there is a function? So requires more than one way of looking at the item, so a "group" is inherently involved in defining "function"?

 

"function" and "group" do not mean the precisely the same thing; but 'function" CONTAINS the idea "group"?

 

 

This :"containment" reminds me of the ideas of Christopher Michael Langan, who's CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model Of the Universe) notes the significance of "same-difference" and has obvious links to what I do.)

[iNow]

Do you think the journal Science or Nature would accept the presentation of an idea written like you have here in this thread?

 

 

What makes you think we should?

 

 

 

Lots of smoke and mirrors, but very little substance.

[Mr Skeptic]

imagine, I'm not sure what you posted above is equivalent to the derivative. But rather than throw a bunch of words at each other, a simple test will convince me that you know what you are talking about. Here goes:

 

What is the derivative of the following?:

[math]x^7[/math]

 

[math](x+3)^5[/math]

 

[math]\frac{1}{x^4}[/math]

 

These are simple enough to do in your head if you studied derivatives and know the shortcuts, but otherwise you will need pencil and paper. Also, providing the answers would go much farther in convincing people you know what a derivative is than stuff like your previous post. Good luck!

[Klaynos]

In science playing with words is NOT how we solve problems.

 

Words cannot make derivations, or testable accurate predictions.

[imagine]

Mr. Skeptic:

 

I have to rush to catch a bus today. I have in mind to take your test; I will not memorise the puzzle, what I have in mind is to use my method on it, and see what happens.

 

Klaynos: I have explained my method. It is NOT "playing with words" exactly; but a very precise technique that LOOKS like I'm playing with words.

It does not even require words as such so much as "patterns of information".

 

I am utterly amazed that no one has followed the logic of it yet.

 

I DO solve science problems, by simplifying them and using my compare and match patterns method; which you ALSO use without even realising it; as "comparing and matching patterns:" is basic in: how thinking works; it seems to me.

 

The shocking thing is, I can look at a massive technical physics paper full of pages of math; yet discover key things that took the guy who wrote maybe years to find; almost instantly.

 

 

That is very shocking to anyone who has not come to grips with that sea-change in science.

 

 

By the way; I figured that there is an error margin in astronomy due to the fact that Earth-6-month change in orbit around the sun is not an absolute base-line; that the parrallax of nearby stars has an error-margin

 

'Parallax relativity" suggests that many if not all "extra-solar planets" could be, due to the highly deductive way they are allegedly "discovered"; may be perturberations in Earth's orbit by other planets in our solar system.

 

"Dark matter" I found = "conserved energy" or "conservation of alternatives";

"dark energy" I found = "conservation of matter" or "conserrvation of disturbance";

both of these superimposed = "the Hioggs boson" = "gearing comparison" = "unit".

 

You want the fabriic of the universe? HOW ABOUT the "fabrication" of the universe; i.e. the MAP.

 

Problems in modern-day physics/astronomy appear to be analogous to the distortion of a spherical Earth when drawn on a flat page in an Atlas.

 

"Einstein Relativity"= two trains that could be going back or forward relative to each other; but if only have a third train as reference; need to take an observation to get at least the impression of two trains moving togther in the same direction re: the third train (also called "parrallax").

 

"I'm not staying relativity" = quantum mechanics ('the mechanics of meeting")

(the two trains that seem coupled in E.R. "meet" at the third train.

 

How define both E.R. and Q.M. if they are different views of the same phenomenon?

[swansont]

What's the lexicon equivalent of numerology?

 

Up until now I thought it was politics.

[Klaynos]

You are just playing with words.

 

I've a nice simple classical mechanics question for you then.

 

Find the equation of motion using your method. It must be at least as accurate as the classical solution.

 

I compare and match patterns useing maths, that way I can quantify the comparison and say without doubt whether two sets match better than another two.