Who judges the measurer who measures himself?

[peatantics]

Since the case is one of " to measure" we here deal with a verbal component in "nominal equivocation to" measurement. What unit of measure is that and what is its conversion factor to newtons from metres one might as well say. Is it transposable from newtons to metres? I know metres does convert to yards as it does to feet and inches and to miles with a simple conversion factor. As far as references are concerned for this subject labelled measurement who is the peer review committee but Mr and Mrs General Public. Think for a second how they would react if the big house they paid big bucks for was delivered unto them in nano miles/kilometres when they were expecting yards/metres. OK the legislation for the building regulations says otherwise, that the regulations say house measurements are in ft/mm and the builder gets hauled through the courts and is fined or goes to jail. Thus is that measure or rule we call a policy statement, which requires first and foremost legislation to make it legal, then enforcers to enforce that law, rule or legislation and last but not least a definite unit of unity for a unit to be measured. Since this is the case and that the intelligent know that unity is established as the concept value 1, how is it and who decided that one plus one is two. Russel and Whitehead could not do this logically in a few pages fewer than there are days in a year in "Principia Mathematica" which I only heard and thus your honour am guilty of submitting mere anecdotal evidence as gained from conversations held by reputable peers speaking only on the radio over here in Australia on Radio National, Science Show on Alan Turing of all places and all peoples.

 

 

Sharon Carlton First Speech forth paragraph line four said @ http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-turing-machine/4047424

Proving that one plus one equals two took 362 pages alone. But their work did not resolve the crisis of confidence, it added to it. They found logic itself contained inescapable contradictions. Bertrand Russell said, 'Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we're talking about, nor whether what we're saying is true.'

 

Does one = 1 or not? Is Russel not merely one man? Is Whitehead not an other one man? One man plus one man equals two men. One by one equals one conversation. Two minus one leaves one talking to oneself. One divided by one equals a big argument that remains to this day non-resolved. There are as many numbers one and above as there are between one and zero. Proof: Take any number negative or positive and put one over it and you have solved the problem all is one and one is for all. Disprove it if you can and when you do we will all be better informed. 1/n x n/1=1 the formula that needs no +1 since it remains certain. I do not know if it works for complex numbers. They are a little difficult to manage on a standard spreadsheet.

 

 

 

Vain Wisdom all and false Philosophy.

Yet with a pleasing sorcery could charm

Pain, for a while, or anguish; and excite

Fallacious Hope, or arm the obdurate breast

With stubborn Patience, as with triple steel.

 

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm

 

 

All the World's a Stage monologue

 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players:

They have their exits and their entrances;

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,

Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel

And shining morning face, creeping like snail

Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,

Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad

Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,

Full of stpaide oaths and bearded like the pard,

Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,

Seeking the bubble reputation

Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,

With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,

Full of wise saws and modern instances;

And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts

Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,

With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,

His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,

Turning again toward childish treble, pipes

And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,

That ends this strange eventful history,

Is second childishness and mere oblivion,

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_world's_a_stage#All_the_World.27s_a_Stage_monologue

 

n-joy=peat<%~))>

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Sorry, what's your discussion point, it's a little hard to tell from your initial post?

[peatantics]

 

Sorry, what's your discussion point, it's a little hard to tell from your

initial post?

 

Bertrand Russell said, 'Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we're talking about, nor whether what we're saying is true.'

 

 

 

Three problems that involve that which has so far failed to be measured with any degree of accuracy

 

1 Impredication

 

2. Indeterminacy

 

3. Incompleteness

 

 

 

The last two will not be solved until the first one is solved.

 

Measure-ability involves as a first step a unit of measure. Who decides on that unit of measure and what happens when another has another unit of measure? Imperial and Metric are two case examples. Every different language group is also a case example. The value of a word as the measure of an idea is thus a complex with vast entanglement. That fluffy little thing that sits on mats is the same to all peoples, yet in the english tongue that is the way it is verbalised and if one is a familiar. When not familiar with the term "CAT" then I might as well go talk to the trees.

 

At this point we reach the point of no-return. The tree in the forest that fell, when no one was there, made a similar noise, to the last time a man with a chainsaw, cut one down.

 

I begin my "SPECULATION" here on the science forum and quote David Hume on "NATURAL RELIGION" for the reason that "Science" is simply that, otherwise called from the enlightenment forward the "NEW PHILOSOPHY" At this point I do not wish to enter the theistic V deistic debate merely give explanation to that which is included in the set of all possible sets popularly labelled "THE PERIODIC TABLE" parts of which form ALL not Some of us HUMANS. Therefore all are of one and from one source call it God, if you so will it, for in the present state of mans ignorances, this concept will have to do. He being the abundance of dynamic energy who formed the entire set of elements from his own "ENERGY". Other than that the material universe is an illusion since the vast majority of it is free space. Shame is that it is crowded with contradictory opinions about what the number 1 is.

 

Until the concept 1 is cleared up there will continue to be confusion. That is why I called this thread "Who measures the measurer who measures their self" It is the logical place to start since it is important to, when we argue from first principals to establish the unit of measure otherwise confusion will be on all our epitaphs.

 

 

Who judges the judge who judges himself, polices the police who police themselves teaches the teachers who teach themselves, and digs the hole that they have dug themselves into? Hope you are familiar with the liar paradox. n-joy=peat<%^))>

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Until the concept 1 is cleared up there will continue to be confusion.

Sounds like a manufactured controversy. I don't agree that we're supposed to chew through this because you're confused.

[Klaynos]

Who decides on that unit of measure and what happens when another has another unit of measure?

 

They are defined quantities. The definitions started off being pretty much arbitrary but a group of people agree that a unit of say length is defined in a certain way and that sticks. Over time our definitions have evolved and the people who agree upon them expanded.

 

You can easily a freely change between units as long as they are units of the same dimension.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

 

Would probably be a good place for you to start.

 

I believe 1 is considered to be axiomatic, I seem to recall discussions on this in the forums before, a search is probably worthwhile.

[peatantics]

Klaynos and Phi for all, I was just viewing this thread and put the final paragraph comment here since I am a new bee here and the rules say my post will be deleted as spam. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68240-experimental-light-exceeds-100-efficiency/

 

As I understand Euclid an Axiom is a thing generated from a Proposition that is generated from a Definition. For the system of numbers to be stable I would suggest that a definition for 1 is a good place to begin, especially since good philosophy chooses to act from first principles. The following example shows very simply, scale invariance of one as orders of magnitude with one extreme tangential digression. The power equations in electronics are brought to mind here. A power of one watt results from energy being used at the rate of one joule per second. A joule is measured in newtons per meter, a newton is measured in kilograms per metre per second raised against the force of gravity to my present understanding of the situation concerning MEASUREMENT. If this has been discussed before on this forum please post some links on this thread for ready referance.

 

 

Comment on http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68240-experimental-light-exceeds-100-efficiency/ and http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html and http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403

 

 

LED fridges coming to a store near you sometime soon? Something to do with an uptake of the heat generated by the system producing a cooling factor similar to a heat pump at low power only. A picowatt is or = to, 10^-12 or one trillionth of a watt or 1/1,000,000,000,000 which is so tiny a VALUE the wonder is that any light, let alone wattage is detectable. Still those guys dream of the big bucks in their offshore bank accounts free from the grips of their tax masters. A unit that delivers more power than it consumes, delivers "above unity efficiency" is the point that interested me. 10 trillion LED's needed to produce one WATT of POWER means that it would probably cost more to make the system than it would ever save, well at least with the state of present day technological developments. Computer chips have just past the billion mark. That means they have 1000 times to go before they get to a trillion. I billion is 10^9 or 1,000,000,000. I million is 10^6 or 1,000,000 and I have only ten bucks on me at present. Pretty funny, that is. n-joy=peat<%^((>

[moth]

 

Who judges the judge who judges himself, polices the police who police themselves teaches the teachers who teach themselves, and digs the hole that they have dug themselves into?

 

 

i'm pretty sure it is the bikini-waxer who bikini-waxes everyone who does not bikini-wax themselves

[peatantics]

i'm pretty sure it is the bikini-waxer who bikini-waxes everyone who does not bikini-wax themselves

 

 

Looks like we have a moth in the flames time to get the moth balls out.

 

Who waxes the bikini waxer who cannot bikini wax their self? is the correct form of the statement.

 

The set of all sets who are not members of themselves showed Russell and Frege a trembleing in their big boots so I am led to believe.

 

The story which brought this on is popularly known as the barber paradox, click the link for an excellent explanation of it from +plus.

 

The problem is one of the excluded middle muddle kind where a cannot be both a and not a if you can get you head around that.

 

Because there is a law of identity and that poor old barber, bikini waxer, judge, jury, policeman and hangman all have the same problem as the teacher of themselves.

 

That is they own or are in possession of a will to be and to do whatever it is that they have learned, practiced and thus have in their work a list of accomplishments and failures.

 

Say I identify myself as Australian that I was born in the fifties that I wen to x y a schools there and then worked at odd jobs till I became a photographer then studied aesthetics.

 

That is my experience with that set of tasks and thus I am the sum of all those memories that is the ones I can recall not the ones that I have forgotten nor the ones I did not learn.

 

This applies to all, in all cases and all instances, I am no one more special than you and they are no one more special than you except perhaps if you do not shave, wax judge teach yourself.

 

That's the facts of life and so it is said "THE FACT FOLLOWS THE ACT"

 

N-JOY=PEAT<&^))>

[Klaynos]

Klaynos and Phi for all, I was just viewing this thread and put the final paragraph comment here since I am a new bee here and the rules say my post will be deleted as spam. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68240-experimental-light-exceeds-100-efficiency/

 

The chance of being deleted as spam at this point is very low.

 

As I understand Euclid an Axiom is a thing generated from a Proposition that is generated from a Definition. For the system of numbers to be stable I would suggest that a definition for 1 is a good place to begin, especially since good philosophy chooses to act from first principles.

 

OK...

 

The following example shows very simply, scale invariance of one as orders of magnitude with one extreme tangential digression. The power equations in electronics are brought to mind here. A power of one watt results from energy being used at the rate of one joule per second. A joule is measured in newtons per meter,

 

No, I think you'll find 1 Joule = 1 Newton meter, not per meter.

 

a newton is measured in kilograms per metre per second raised against the force of gravity

 

Raised against the force of gravity? That seems completely made up, what is your sources for this.

 

1Newton = 1 kg m/s^2

 

to my present understanding of the situation concerning MEASUREMENT. If this has been discussed before on this forum please post some links on this thread for ready referance.

 

 

Comment on http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68240-experimental-light-exceeds-100-efficiency/ and http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html and http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403

 

 

LED fridges coming to a store near you sometime soon? Something to do with an uptake of the heat generated by the system producing a cooling factor similar to a heat pump at low power only. A picowatt is or = to, 10^-12 or one trillionth of a watt or 1/1,000,000,000,000 which is so tiny a VALUE the wonder is that any light, let alone wattage is detectable.

 

In scientific journals numbers are quoted with errors which take into account the accuracy of the measurement tools involved. You'd need some knowledge of their equipment used to query this or to state otherwise, just saying you don't think doesn't hold any weight I'm afraid.

 

Still those guys dream of the big bucks in their offshore bank accounts free from the grips of their tax masters. A unit that delivers more power than it consumes, delivers "above unity efficiency" is the point that interested me.

 

It is not above unity efficiency when you take into account all of the energy sources available, which includes the surrounding room temperature.

 

10 trillion LED's needed to produce one WATT of POWER means that it would probably cost more to make the system than it would ever save,

 

If you are making LEDs anyway, making more efficient ones pays off.

 

well at least with the state of present day technological developments. Computer chips have just past the billion mark. That means they have 1000 times to go before they get to a trillion. I billion is 10^9 or 1,000,000,000. I million is 10^6 or 1,000,000 and I have only ten bucks on me at present. Pretty funny, that is. n-joy=peat<%^((>

 

I still don't really understand what your point is?

[peatantics]

The chance of being deleted as spam at this point is very low.

 

 

 

OK...

 

 

 

No, I think you'll find 1 Joule = 1 Newton meter, not per meter.

 

 

 

Raised against the force of gravity? That seems completely made up, what is your sources for this.

 

1Newton = 1 kg m/s^2

 

 

 

In scientific journals numbers are quoted with errors which take into account the accuracy of the measurement tools involved. You'd need some knowledge of their equipment used to query this or to state otherwise, just saying you don't think doesn't hold any weight I'm afraid.

 

 

 

It is not above unity efficiency when you take into account all of the energy sources available, which includes the surrounding room temperature.

 

 

 

If you are making LEDs anyway, making more efficient ones pays off.

 

 

 

I still don't really understand what your point is?

 

Thankyou Klaynos for taking the time to extract and fix some nominal errors. "Since the case is one of " to measure" we here deal with a verbal component in "nominal equivocation to" measurement." The first sentence is what this thread is about and in the place on Science Forums labelled speculation. That is a fact the evidence is in the statement. That is rational explanation enough if we are to use that word correctly via context.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rational rational late 14c., "pertaining to reason;" mid-15c., "endowed with reason," from L. rationalis "of or belonging to reason, reasonable," from ratio (gen. rationis) "reckoning, calculation, reason" (see ratio).

 

The title would read better if it took the following form. "Who measures the measurer who measures himself?" To speak of 1 and 0, which by some is considered trivial, but then the triviam is logic, rhetoric and grammar or foolisness in the extreme to some. Fundamentals are never questioned they are accepted because they are acceptable to the majority and then never questioned. Science by definition is the study of the order of things, the log of events that has reverserse engineered and plagiarised the work of an unknown unnamed author. I have not heard one academic ever answer "What came before the Big Bang?" nor "What happens after the Big Crunch?" The manifestation of the laws that govern what they say evolved can easily be replaced with developed. That is a very simple emperical test one can perform every time one hears a religionist or a scientist use that evolve word. That is fundamentalism at one extreme thus science is a natural religion.

 

Then we have the problem of any number and its reciprocal. For every number there is its inverse. Thus the number of numbers below 1 down to 0 is exactly the same or equivalent to the number of numbers 1 and above. That is what is predicated as first definition. Fundamental arithmatic such that 1/nxn/1=1 simple grade nine algebra. That is the speculation as to whether it is acceptable to all and not some exclusive peer review committee that excludes the majority an opinion at their experts table, is the problem. Sheep are sheep and Goats are goats and horny fluffy little head butters they are. Sorry only in english. Not is french or german or arabic or hebrew are they called that, yet, the characteristics or attributes that define their form make the same shape to all the nations eyes. You think for a second that a butterfly knows its name let alone cares that it has been given a name by man? NO! We do it so we can communicate the idea of the thing and live in hope and have faith that the other to whom we are speaking has knowledge of sheep like things, goat shaped things and butterfly flying things. If not then better to talk to a wall and patiently wait for the sound of silence as an answer.

 

 

Place a weight on a scale and lets say it is 1 kilogram.

 

Attach a pulley to a beam above that measure device.

 

Their is a lug at the top of the weight so get some rope.

 

Another spring loaded measuring device attach to rope.

 

Join the parts and put a one kg of tension on the spring.

 

Did you join the parts correctly and the spring is at the lug.

 

The rope is attached to the spring tensioner measurer device.

 

The predicted outcome on the spring tensioner measurer is what?

 

Is their a differance and which balance scale is the more accurate?

 

Does not really matter since 1 g of force is the requirement to lift it.

 

In fact no matter what the weight is 1 g is what you have to fight against.

 

If not then you live in a vacuum for at sea level there is not 1 atmosphere of pressure.

 

So there is proof that via dimentional analysis gravity gives a mass of 1kg.

 

The weight is now weightless as measured against a force of 1g, golly gosh g.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Commensurability

 

n-joy=peat<B<(#)>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Thankyou Klaynos for taking the time to extract and fix some nominal errors. "Since the case is one of " to measure" we here deal with a verbal component in "nominal equivocation to" measurement."

 

OK, that doesn't really help clarify what you want to talk about as it appears pretty much meaningless...

 

The first sentence is what this thread is about and in the place on Science Forums labelled speculation. That is a fact the evidence is in the statement. That is rational explanation enough if we are to use that word correctly via context.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rational rational late 14c., "pertaining to reason;" mid-15c., "endowed with reason," from L. rationalis "of or belonging to reason, reasonable," from ratio (gen. rationis) "reckoning, calculation, reason" (see ratio).

 

The title would read better if it took the following form. "Who measures the measurer who measures himself?" To speak of 1 and 0, which by some is considered trivial, but then the triviam is logic, rhetoric and grammar or foolisness in the extreme to some.

 

I think discussing the origin of 1 and the origin of measurement are quite different. One is a mathematical abstract discussion and the other is a practical physical discussion...

 

 

Fundamentals are never questioned they are accepted because they are acceptable to the majority and then never questioned. Science by definition is the study of the order of things, the log of events that has reverserse engineered and plagiarised the work of an unknown unnamed author. I have not heard one academic ever answer "What came before the Big Bang?" nor "What happens after the Big Crunch?"

 

Those questions are currently outside the known understanding of science, so no you wouldn't get an answer. Science doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Science is the mathematical modelling of the universe and the subsequent testing of those models against reality.

 

 

The manifestation of the laws that govern what they say evolved can easily be replaced with developed. That is a very simple emperical test one can perform every time one hears a religionist or a scientist use that evolve word. That is fundamentalism at one extreme thus science is a natural religion.

 

I don't understand how this has anything to do with 1 or measurement. This is one of the reasons I've no idea what your thread is supposed to be about, it seems disjointed and rambling. Sorry if that seems harsh but it is probably why there are few replies.

 

 

 

Then we have the problem of any number and its reciprocal. For every number there is its inverse. Thus the number of numbers below 1 down to 0 is exactly the same or equivalent to the number of numbers 1 and above. That is what is predicated as first definition. Fundamental arithmatic such that 1/nxn/1=1 simple grade nine algebra. That is the speculation as to whether it is acceptable to all and not some exclusive peer review committee that excludes the majority an opinion at their experts table, is the problem.

 

"There is an infinite number of fractions between 0 and 1" seems acceptable to me, but I'm a physicist not a mathematician.

 

 

Sheep are sheep and Goats are goats and horny fluffy little head butters they are. Sorry only in english. Not is french or german or arabic or hebrew are they called that, yet, the characteristics or attributes that define their form make the same shape to all the nations eyes. You think for a second that a butterfly knows its name let alone cares that it has been given a name by man? NO! We do it so we can communicate the idea of the thing and live in hope and have faith that the other to whom we are speaking has knowledge of sheep like things, goat shaped things and butterfly flying things. If not then better to talk to a wall and patiently wait for the sound of silence as an answer.

 

Again, how does this relate to your point? Maths is a language, yes. Unit sets could probably be considered to be a dialect I suppose.

 

 

Place a weight on a scale and lets say it is 1 kilogram.

 

Attach a pulley to a beam above that measure device.

 

Their is a lug at the top of the weight so get some rope.

 

Another spring loaded measuring device attach to rope.

 

Join the parts and put a one kg of tension on the spring.

 

Did you join the parts correctly and the spring is at the lug.

 

The rope is attached to the spring tensioner measurer device.

 

The predicted outcome on the spring tensioner measurer is what?

 

Can you provide a diagram of this? Are you saying does it matter if you weigh something with the device above or below our sample? If you are asking that then no it does not matter.

 

 

 

Is their a differance and which balance scale is the more accurate?

 

Does not really matter since 1 g of force is the requirement to lift it.

 

g is an acceleration, assuming the mass is the same the force is F = mg.

 

 

In fact no matter what the weight is 1 g is what you have to fight against.

 

If not then you live in a vacuum for at sea level there is not 1 atmosphere of pressure.

 

Pressure has nothing to do with the mass nor the weight of an object. (assuming it is not outgassing)

 

 

So there is proof that via dimentional analysis gravity gives a mass of 1kg.

 

Gravity does not give mass. This doesn't make sense. Dimensional analysis is not evidence for anything, it can be used as evidence against it though.

 

 

The weight is now weightless as measured against a force of 1g, golly gosh g.

 

I'm sorry, what?

[CirclesAndDots]

To the casual observer this post appears to suggest a few things, none very clearly. Firstly, Mathematics, as is generally conceived, is imperfect because the logical system from which it was constructed is imperfect. Similarly, it is fractured in nature by association with language. This is what I am able to extract from this contemplation. I, further, can risk a guess to arrive at what seems to be at the spirit of your inquiry. You express openly a desire to avoid a theistic/deistic debate yet the direction of your argument is immersed in a mentality very typical of religious sentimentalism. (I use this word loosely, no exacting philosophical definitions need apply). This isn't, by and large, a point of contention on a science forum; calling science a religion, however, is.

 

We can very well argue to a point of intellectual helplessness (The bane of epistemology) so much that we can no longer identify the difference between spoons and eating (more on that in a bit). For the sake of an ounce of resolution, let's make clear the relationship between science and reality and religion and reality and more crucially let's make known the very engine that drives the practice of each and from that I think it will be clear that science, indeed, is not a religion and what's more it is quite antagonistic to the spirit of religion. (That sentence sounds dreadfully full of promises and if anything is achieved here it will be the knowledge of the mirror that allows one to self-reflect is broken).

 

Briefly, uniformly, I think science and religion begin with a like impetus; curiosity or unknowing---and the similarities end there. Science tinkers with the validity of knowing and doubt. It has been said science is but the "quantification of doubts". Religion rips the head off the thinking man. (I mean this both literally and figuratively) Where science begins with observation, Religion begins with assertion. Where science tests, religion converts or enforces. Science debates, Religion worships. These are very different verbs and very different actions and only with the most relaxed and loose definition of religion or science can these possibly be merged. The fuel in them both fundamentally is different, faith and doubt.

 

Science is a process, a tool for the skeptic--not a worldview. As a skeptic, one can go merrily on their way without science--many do; just as one might go lifelong without using a hygrothermograph. Science has no "adherents", there are people that 'practice' science, use the tools and methods of science, in the same way someone might practice line dancing.

 

Much of what has been summarily said is nothing new to the perceived or real hostilities between religion and science. What remains to be addressed is the spirit in which you raised your question. Let's coax the wizard from the curtain. Reasonably it would seem you are making the argument from ignorance FOR ignorance. The tools and methods of man to extrapolate, predict, and generally navigate in and around 'truth' or reality is for naught because they simply exist to serve the idea that we are too stupid to realize our confusion but smart enough to realize why "God" (In whatever definition, iteration--I realize "He" has evolved lately) occupies that area just outside of confusion.

 

A popular internet image darts forward to provide some visual clarification of this concept:

 

 

While this seems woefully inappropriate it conjures up an accurate model of the sentiment expressed by those empowering the argument from and for ignorance. Science is a big, cumbersome, overbearing tool (in this case, a spoon) and is not suited for the acquisition of 'truth' (or in this case, cereal); so apparently we go hungry.

 

If I twisted the intent of the original message, I apologize and if clarification can be provided I'm happy to tailor my response. As knowledge changes so do I.

 

And if you have to be obscure, remember, be obscure clearly.

 

As this is a popular notion circulating among social theorists, scientists, and I suppose religious apologists. Here is a link to a response from an editor of the reputable science journal Nature:

 

http://www.scilogs.com/ieditor/science-as-a-religion-that-worships-doubt-as-its-god/

[peatantics]

Pressure has nothing to do with the mass nor the weight of an object. (assuming it is not outgassing)

 

 

 

Gravity does not give mass. This doesn't make sense. Dimensional analysis is not evidence for anything, it can be used as evidence against it though.

 

There is such a phenomena that there is the column of air above YOU. I do not desire, at least at present to go into any details about noumena except too say some things remain unknown and at present it is best that this remains that way till we know better. The pressure of gravity 1G on that mass results @ sealevel of a result called one atmosphere or 1A.

 

I left one vital step out in this analysis ( previous post ) just to see if you were capable of joining the dots then paint by numbers the picture. What is IT? 1gee whiz bang of acceleration means you can walk on water and paddling the only form of traction?

 

We have dimentional analysis here under discussion and since that is the case the point under pressure is either in a vacuum or not in a vacuum.

 

Where one places the zero component then becomes of great interest from 1A that is present because of 1G which varies by miniscule amounts over earths surface.

 

http://en.wikipedia....pparent_gravity

 

The weight is now weightless as measured against a force of 1g, golly gosh g.

 

 

I'm sorry, what?

 

 

 

 

 

How this has an effect on weather systems then becomes, at least from my personal POV is of great interest.

 

While I admit to being guilty you honour of going on tangential digressions from of the point of the subject of "Measure for Measure" and admit to not being of a mathematical background either. I do however have some experience with the practical demonstration of mathematics via the following medium of presentation. One may speak of the pressure a photon places on an electron and measure the products of that pressure in lumens for intensity or in mireds for control of the colour temperature of that luminous energy. This is important since for the rendering of a visual space from reality to the camera to the darkroom (analog chemical) filters /lightroom etc. (digital mathematical) Look Up Tables etc. either monitor or to projection or to print as a synthetic representation of the previously seen reality. That is the direction that this research into the aesthetic domain arrives from. The fact is Standard International Units have been measured and agreed too. But when I make a photograph how it appears on my monitor and how it appears on your monitor will be different. Not because the Standards are different but because the application of those standard measurements from manufacture to user involves differering interpretations of calibration. Photographers speak in terms of red labs for portrait labs and blue labs for commercial work. No mention is made of green labs for the amataur photographer, for at them it is the colour you get on the print as determined by the state of the chemistry or calibration of their system at that time. Try to get them to match a colour and the person who serves you at the counter will give you stange looks. See a tangential digression way off the subject yet still it remains within the boundaries of measurement. The example included is a distortion of reality since it makes vain attempt to include 180x360 degree angle of view from nadir to zenith.

 

 

 

 

The term dimension is more abstract than scale unit: mass is a dimension, while kilograms are a scale unit (choice of standard) in the mass dimension.

 

When we consider G and A as a dimension we deal with a variable with plus or minus or above and below some unknown unit of measure that results in what is from an anthropic viewpoint the goldilocks syndrome.

 

http://www.lifespr.c...locks-syndrome/

 

Goldilock's Problem: This porridge is

too hot (COMPLAINT), then, this porridge is too cold (COMPLAINT), too, this

porridge is JUST RIGHT (SATISFACTION OF PERSONAL INTEREST).

 

Among the major concerns about the new revision are:

 

(1) unwarranted expansion of diagnostic categories by reducing current thresholds and added untested diagnoses

 

(2) pathologizing "natural and normal" responses to life experiences. Concerns that "natural and normal" behaviors will be a diagnostically labeled, have been around a long time and have lead to things like pregnancy being called a disease.

 

(3) imposing dimensional diagnoses that are far too cumbersome and complex for clinical use, and

 

(4) a push to see all mental disorders as biological phenomena calling for psychotropic medications.

 

Well there you have it dimensional analysis as to what is natural or normal which questions conventional systems of evaluation of what is the norm or standard of behaviour that any study is too measure as a quantity but not how to measure a quality which this thread hopes to address. The present day value system here in the west has been reduced to the amount of debt burden one can bear such that ones credit limit does not extend beyond the limit of that which one can pay back in a given amount of time. Double entry book-keeping well might become triple entry book-keeping with the third column marked affect on environment. Which environment? IE Spell not working, please excuse any spelling errors

 

n-joy=peat<%^(1)>

 

To the casual observer this post appears to suggest a few things, none very clearly. Firstly, Mathematics, as is generally conceived, is imperfect because the logical system from which it was constructed is imperfect. Similarly, it is fractured in nature by association with language. This is what I am able to extract from this contemplation. I, further, can risk a guess to arrive at what seems to be at the spirit of your inquiry. You express openly a desire to avoid a theistic/deistic debate yet the direction of your argument is immersed in a mentality very typical of religious sentimentalism. (I use this word loosely, no exacting philosophical definitions need apply). This isn't, by and large, a point of contention on a science forum; calling science a religion, however, is.

 

We can very well argue to a point of intellectual helplessness (The bane of epistemology) so much that we can no longer identify the difference between spoons and eating (more on that in a bit). For the sake of an ounce of resolution, let's make clear the relationship between science and reality and religion and reality and more crucially let's make known the very engine that drives the practice of each and from that I think it will be clear that science, indeed, is not a religion and what's more it is quite antagonistic to the spirit of religion. (That sentence sounds dreadfully full of promises and if anything is achieved here it will be the knowledge of the mirror that allows one to self-reflect is broken).

 

Briefly, uniformly, I think science and religion begin with a like impetus; curiosity or unknowing---and the similarities end there. Science tinkers with the validity of knowing and doubt. It has been said science is but the "quantification of doubts". Religion rips the head off the thinking man. (I mean this both literally and figuratively) Where science begins with observation, Religion begins with assertion. Where science tests, religion converts or enforces. Science debates, Religion worships. These are very different verbs and very different actions and only with the most relaxed and loose definition of religion or science can these possibly be merged. The fuel in them both fundamentally is different, faith and doubt.

 

Science is a process, a tool for the skeptic--not a worldview. As a skeptic, one can go merrily on their way without science--many do; just as one might go lifelong without using a hygrothermograph. Science has no "adherents", there are people that 'practice' science, use the tools and methods of science, in the same way someone might practice line dancing.

 

Much of what has been summarily said is nothing new to the perceived or real hostilities between religion and science. What remains to be addressed is the spirit in which you raised your question. Let's coax the wizard from the curtain. Reasonably it would seem you are making the argument from ignorance FOR ignorance. The tools and methods of man to extrapolate, predict, and generally navigate in and around 'truth' or reality is for naught because they simply exist to serve the idea that we are too stupid to realize our confusion but smart enough to realize why "God" (In whatever definition, iteration--I realize "He" has evolved lately) occupies that area just outside of confusion.

 

A popular internet image darts forward to provide some visual clarification of this concept:

 

 

While this seems woefully inappropriate it conjures up an accurate model of the sentiment expressed by those empowering the argument from and for ignorance. Science is a big, cumbersome, overbearing tool (in this case, a spoon) and is not suited for the acquisition of 'truth' (or in this case, cereal); so apparently we go hungry.

 

If I twisted the intent of the original message, I apologize and if clarification can be provided I'm happy to tailor my response. As knowledge changes so do I.

 

And if you have to be obscure, remember, be obscure clearly.

 

As this is a popular notion circulating among social theorists, scientists, and I suppose religious apologists. Here is a link to a response from an editor of the reputable science journal Nature:

 

http://www.scilogs.c...ubt-as-its-god/

 

Full version of video 1 and thanks for the link. "The sky is falling sort of hysterical reaction where tragedy and comedy meet is nail biting that is, one feels that if ones nails slip one picometre one plummets into the abyss."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnunzlgVXjI&feature=related

 

or

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnunzlgVXjI&feature=related

 

I see your take is based upon a divide between doubt and faith as to whether science is a religion or not. Well I daresay you have heard of the explanatory gap then. That gaping hole in consciousness between faith and doubt requires a bridge to breech it. So far as I read that situation is dependant upon whose definition of what a religion is is known as from that ancient Roman Pantheons domain in Juvenal and Cicero use of that word anciently of To Bind back or To Step out from memory, please correct me if I am wrong here, I have to go to an appointment, time is short, cannot check up on it at present. A very reasonable and considerate response and thankyou for taking the time to read though and pull out some of the ambiguities of my presentation. There are as yet a number of errors that require some work to correct. Be sure that I am o the job to do so. Most of the stuff I study is very strange, very stange indeed to me. Whatever the subject heading that language or epistimology falls under is cult-ure. n-joy=peat<X^(-)>