Off topic posts from, "New theories are trash?????"

[cladking]

So you keep saying. Yet you provide no evidence to support it. Counter evidence has been provided by several people.

 

 

Really?!? I sure missed that contrary evidence! If I had actually seen it I'd have had to google up the widespread studies that have been done on the subject.

 

It is nothing to do with being outside my experience. The evidence shows that your assertions are incorrect. Your smug repetitions of your "unique insight" will not change that

 

 

I have no unique insight and never said I did. I have a unique perspective derived from stumbling on the solution to an engineering problem and being forced by naysayers to prove it. I've made no momentus discoveries but have likely made the biggest rediscovery that will ever exist in human history.

 

Truth to tell the biggest thing I did will probably never be seen at all as it will be considered incidental; I debunked the paradigm. If I'm right the paradigm will be seen as so easy to debunk it's almost irrelevant. So far this is the only thing that has professional interest at all. I'm sure they don't care one whit about my solution. I actually arrived at the solution in a matter of seconds but the debunkment required years of study and lots of help from my friends.

[xyzt]

 

I try to make literary device use obvious to avoid confusion. In very real ways I am using an updated free flowing form of ancient thought expressed in modern language.

I'll have Ranch with this.

[Bignose]

If I'm right the paradigm will be seen as so easy to debunk it's almost irrelevant.

Ok. This is a bold claim. Let's see it. If it is that damn easy, just post it. Let's quit with all the vainglorious self-aggrandizing about how quickly you grokked it all up.

[cladking]

So, to sum up. You are quite sure you're right, but there have been no tests to confirm or deny it because there is no alternative.

 

This is called faith. Not science. You believe something without evidence for it, ergo faith. When you can present evidence for it, bring it to a scientist. But science is not interested in your faith.

 

 

I'm reasonably confident I'm right. It's a complex and involved theory that likely has aspects that are wrong but I'm more than 70% confident that the overall solution is essentially correct. This is based on very very extensive and very very widespread evidence of various types. Most of this evidence is low-grade however. Only two pieces of physical evidence are what I consider high grade evidence and neither even in aggregate is conclusive. The fact is all this evidence fits a definitive pattern and this pattern is diametrically opposed to the current paradigm. Additionally and more importantly the theory makes accurate predictions and the paradigm does not. The paradigm is very very poorly supported by the evidence and most of it doesn't fit at all so is simply considered irrelevant.

 

While I still lack widespread support there is a bevy of new theories each year and they increasingly are similar to mine. Indeed, very recently other parties may have discovered some fairly good physical evidence to support their new theory which is very similar to mine and which I have been trying to incorporate into my theory since it is very sound and reasonably well evidenced. While there's no reason to believe I've won or wilkl win this is the direction everything is headed.

 

 

You have to provide a preponderance of clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence to support your idea.

 

There isn't a lot of evidence of anything but it fits my theory because my theory was built around the evidence. The paradigm was built around 19th century assumptions.

 

Curiously I've long suspected my theory might be proven statistically but I don't know how.

 

 

 

So, which is it? There is no evidence because "there is no alternative to modern language", or "the evidence all agrees with me" in which case, it should be easy to provide clear-cut, objective, statistically significant evidence.

 

Modern language is irrelevant to the evidence because all the evidence existed before the onset of modern language. The physical evidence suggests the engineering solution and the other evidence suggests that language changed. There was a single world wide language and then it changed to the many modern languages. It is the unseen change in language which hid this from the scholars and experts who would otherwise have seen it clearly. I'm not sure why they can't see it now but they have refused to talk to me directly for years now.

[Le Repteux]

Do you have a web page that describes your theory Cladking?

 

OK, good night everybody, I am getting tired!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Bignose]

There isn't a lot of evidence of anything but it fits my theory because my theory was built around the evidence.

What 'perspective' lets you write such a ridiculously self-contradictory statement?!? Sheesh. I just don't know what to say anymore. If this is right in your mind, then I think I'll never see your 'perspective' or your language or whatever you're on here.

 

Look, if you want to convince us your idea is right, then you need to translate your 'ancient language' into something we can understand. And use terms as we all use them. And not write self-contradictory sentences and paragraphs. It may make sense to you, but it really doesn't to me. I'm trying here. I'm trying to give you a chance. But I can't understand these things when you say one thing and then seemingly say the opposite, just a few sentences or in the case of the quote above, just a few words later. You may have all the evidence in the world, but communication is also an important skill. If you can't communicate these ideas and evidences well, then you just aren't going convince anyone.

[cladking]

Ok. This is a bold claim. Let's see it. If it is that damn easy, just post it. Let's quit with all the vainglorious self-aggrandizing about how quickly you grokked it all up.

 

There's nothing vainglorious about the way I think. I have no delusions about my mental abilities. I'm dense as a brick and a little thick. My ability to follow directions or to think logically AND rigorously are severely restricted. I'm self taught and had a terrible teacher which was only OK because I was worse student. I invented my own courses and tried to develop my intuition. This is how I think. It's not like other people any more than my training is like other peoples'. I am a self taught specialist in generalism which is a field that doesn't even exist. I know almost nothing but can intuit enough to get by in a lot of situations. If this weren't strange enough the last eight years have certainly made me even more different.

 

I think exceedingly quickly. Not accurately.

 

I've never actually recorded the entire debunkment of the paradigm in a single place and it's not really necessaary to do so to destroy it through undermining. Essentially the Egyptological paradigm holds that the great pyramid builders were superstitious and changeless people who dragged tombs up ramps. I can address and attack each of these incorrect tenets but only ramps are well debunked. It really shouldn't be necessary to debunk the idea that the people were "changeless" because there is nothing about the people that is understood. It's impossible to say something never changed if the original state can't be determined. They invented this idea of changelessness because they did understand the later people so they projected attributes of these later people backward in time. This is why Egyptology tends to have anachronisms everywhere. The chronology is warped to help "understand" the great pyramid builders.

 

Unfortunately I'm not on my own computer right now so can't easily locate the debunkment. Just suffice to say for now that the word "ramp" isn't even attested in the Egyptian language in the great pyramid building age. What is attested is the means that were actually used to build it but this is recorded in a language which looks like superstitious gobbledty gook until it is solved by context. Each word that is used acquires connotative and definitional characteristics each time it is used. When you start solving the meaning of the words then a different kind of language emerges that is metaphysical in nature and expresses meaning differently than modern language. This language implies that the means to build it that I had intuited initially was exactly the means actually used. What it says is in close agreement with the physical evidence though it should be noted that my solution to the problem (the details) were deduced from a comparison of the physical evidence and what the builders actually said in their metaphysical language.

 

I can add the debunkment at a later time easily enough but it is exactly what I promised; widespread physical and cultural evidenbce that supports using the weight of water to build the great pyramids rather than ramps. The fact people don't believe this and present endless irrelevancies as support for their position changes nothing. They most likely used water to lift the stones and ramps are debunked. In the last few years Egyptologists have been trying and failing to rebunk ramps (since 2011). They are still not doing the simple testing that would positively identify the means used and probably would indicate the use of water filled counterweights to lift the stone.

Edited September 25, 2014 by cladking

[Ophiolite]

 

I think exceedingly quickly. Not accurately.

We are half the same then. I also think quickly.

 

 

I know almost nothing but can intuit enough to get by in a lot of situations.

Another almost similarity. I know a reasonable amount and can smell bullshit up to 8kms away. Further with the aid of the internet.

 

Essentially the Egyptological paradigm holds that the great pyramid builders were superstitious and changeless people who dragged tombs up ramps.

But seriously, please provide a single peer reviewed item of research from an archaeological journal that supports your contention that Egyptologists think the ancient Egyptians were changeless.

[Bignose]

<all sorts of Egypt stuff>

cladking, you've presented your Egypt stuff before. You've had your own thread on it. I really thought this monumental paradigm shift that was about the current paradigm that apparently limits our ability to do science. That's what this whole thread has been about, the ability to do science and how new ideas are accepted. If you want to discuss your Egypt stuff, then it belongs in a different thread.

 

So, then, how about providing some evidence that the way we think is limiting us.

 

Specifically, I want you to support these statements here:

I'm sure it's a factor and I'm sure to date there is simply no alternative because to date there is no alternative to modern language.

I am patient and persistent and I'm most probably right.

This was about how our modern language is a factor in limiting us in our ability to do science. I am befuddled about how the first statement says there is no alternative, but in the second you think you are right. Somewhere in here you drifted to thinking we were talking about your personal Egypt theory, but I want to know how you can support your statement that another form of language is better for science than our modern ones. That's the heart of the matter of this thread.

[cladking]

 

 

But seriously, please provide a single peer reviewed item of research from an archaeological journal that supports your contention that Egyptologists think the ancient Egyptians were changeless.

 

I'm sorry, I thought I had said it but merely implied it.

 

This is much like Egyptologists never really say the Egyptians never changed and actually often point out differences between the culture over time. But these differences are rather inconsequential and involve things like which "god" arose at what time and when words changed to include new meanings. That they don't understansd the older culture is simple fact. It's a simple fact they don't recognize because after 150 years of intensive study they naturally see what they think they know and never notice things like that they can't tell you the origin or function of any of the icons. Even the most basic icons like the ankh is not understood!!! They know only that it's a glyph and means "life". This even applies to many of the glyphs; they can "read" them but don't understand how they came to represent a word or sound. Perhaps the most telling proof that they don't understand is that they believe the ancients believed in magic and religion. But even after centuries of study they don't know either the origin or function of a single one of the 27 different known "magic" scepters.

 

Many people will say that it doesn't matter if Egyptologists understand the magic or religion since it's unlikely either were effective in the real world anyway. Obviously to most of us this is very true. But this misses the point. There is almost nothing at all on which to understand the so called beliefs of the ancient people other than a single book of magic called the Pyramid Texts and this isn't understood. ALL OF THE OTHER PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL EVIDENCE fails to support ramps and suggests that the pyramids were built with water filled counterweights. The fact that most of this evidence is weak is irrelevant because it all fits a different pattern than Egyptologists believe. Add in the fact that the Pyramid Texts when solved by context says that Egyptologists are wrong and it makes a very strong case.

 

Egyptologists never say that the people never changed. What they do is solve the Pyramid Texts in terms of the book of the dead and use definitions from later times to understand words. They pound the incomprehensible Pyramid Texts into the book of the dead. The book of the dead is just superstition and religion so after they solve the PT in terms of it the PT become superstition and religion as well. Words that appear a single time in the ncient record and whose meaning can't possibly be deduced are simply assumed to have the same referent to the older authors as to the writers of the book of the dead. They have created a frankenstein's monster of the PT which is not in any way reflective of the people or the intent of the authors. It can't be shown to reflect the people because there are almost no points outside the PT to demonstrate it. Or it might be said most points outside the PT in support are from many centuries later. As they interpret the work it is internally inconsistent and illogical. They ascribe these properties to many origins and the nature of magic but there are simple facts that argue against this. For instance, nothing gives them more headache than the simplest term in the book; "the eye of horus". This is simply any opening for "serpents" which were gasses, liquids, or any fluids. Egyptologists write book about the meaning of this term because every time it's used it appears to have a different meaning to modern language speakers. If you think that the "gods" are consciousnesses that rule men's destiny you can't understand that a body part is actually an aspect of a natural phenomenon. Egyptologist misunderstand the ancient language in exactly the same way as the authors of the book of the dead. As time goes by this will become increasingly obvious and the reasons will become increasingly obvious. The same errors are forced by the formatting of the ancient language and our language is confused in the same way as that of the authors of the book of the dead. The same incorrect assumptions are made.

 

No, Egyptologists revel in the changes and hope identifying these changes will someday lead to understanding the Pyramid Texts, but so long as their basic assumptions are wrong it was probably very very unlikely they could have ever gotten to the correct answer if my theory is the correct answer. It would have required a breakthrough in a different area just as it did for me. And the root cause of the inability to see this, much more than our confused lanuage, is the assumption that nothing ever changed. This is just so basic to the problem. Remember that Egyptologists often say they have a mountain of proof for their theories. They mistakingly believe this because they are using extrapolations from later eras to understand and what proof for this can be stronger than the simple fact that the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age? There is no mountain of proof; there is a mountain of extrapolations founded on several common sense assumptions from the 19th century. These assumptions just happened to be wrong, the extrapolations illegitimate, and the entire construct created on sand.

 

This hardly means I hate Egyptologists or all scientists. But I do have a unique perspective of what might be the true nature of language and how it affects ALL people including Egyptologists. I simply haven't gotten around yet to thinking a lot about how it afects science but, obviously, anything that affects all scientist does affect the pursuit and understanding of science.

[physica]

Cladking this is so much waffle. The more that's written the more meanings can be drawn from it. This is why multiple conversations keep springing up. Simply google writing concisely. You'll see that people who really know what they're talking about sum up a point in 5 lines. Politicians generally waffle... doesn't that tell you something? Einstein said: if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it.

Edited September 25, 2014 by physica

[cladking]

 

It is not a "simple fact". It is an opinion. It is an assertion unsupported by any evidence. It is a belief.

 

(But I suppose I am only saying that because I am "unable to see The Truth" - which only makes you sound even more like a preacher.)

 

More accurately you are simply simply stating irrelevancy. You probably feel that this is a refutation of my logic and facts but you haven't addressed the logic or facts at all and merely cited your opinion about the implications of my words. Your opinion is it's just assertion but you haven't said how it's possible that they wouldn't know any sceptres or why you believe they don't need to. If you attacked the actual argument it could proceed and possibly end up at the truth.

 

That you don't agree was going to be given in the first place was it not? That you don't agree hardly means you can't see the truth merely that you interprets facts differenmtly or see from a different perspective. In this case you apparently just have a different perspective since you have not cited logic or facts. A different perspective doesn't make you wrong but it sure as hell doesn't make me wrong either.

Einstein said: if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it.

 

The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age.

 

They write many many books about the meaning of even the simplest terms. Can you imagine archaeologists in the future writing endless tomes about the meaning of our word "pipe"?

 

It's impossible that a clear understanding can exist and these facts be true.

[cladking]

 

I don't think that is true. If it were, it would mean that there is objective evidence for the existence of God or aliens.

 

One person can be mistaken/deluded/dishonest and so can one million.

 

Yep, wave your hands and the objections disappear.

 

Pointing out that there is no evidence is not irrelevant on a science forum.

 

 

No. I am just pointing out that you are making an unsupported assertion. That is all.

 

As it is unsupported by "facts" or logic, there is nothing to refute.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

I cited evidence, you pretended it didn't exist.

 

This is exactly the subject of this thread. If people can't see the conjecture then they don't address it and cite irrelevancies. You can't just say there's no evidence after it's stated.

[Strange]

 

No.

 

I cited evidence, you pretended it didn't exist.

 

This is exactly the subject of this thread. If people can't see the conjecture then they don't address it and cite irrelevancies. You can't just say there's no evidence after it's stated.

 

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that you have evidence then your conclusion is a "theory" not a "simple fact".

[Bignose]

I cited evidence

As I said above, the details of this should be move to your own thread, but if you re-read the long posts you've put here, you told us an awful lot about your personal interpretations of things like the pyramid texts, but as far as concrete evidence, there is very little. Yes, this will take quite a lot to actually post evidence in thorough detail. But, I'm not just going to accept your interpretation of hieroglyphics just because you say it is right. But, again, please reserve this detailed work for your own thread.

 

If you want to defend your notions about how our 'modern language' doesn't let us science as well as you think we should be able to, that belongs here.

 

Le Repteux, this is kind of interesting because this goes back to what I wrote above. That evidence as presented is examined thoroughly. That what at first glance can seem strong, can sometimes be found to be weak. A lot of times people use logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies to make their evidence sound better, but once you learn to spot these, you can see whose arguments are weak and whose are strong.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Bignose

[cladking]

 

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that you have evidence then your conclusion is a "theory" not a "simple fact".

 

 

Yes. This is a theory and there are great number of simple facts to support it. I believe the theory is sound due to its ability to predict.

 

That it upsets so many commonly held beliefs simply highlights the fact that language really is confused.

[cladking]

As I said above, the details of this should be move to your own thread, but if you re-read the long posts you've put here, you told us an awful lot about your personal interpretations of things like the pyramid texts, but as far as concrete evidence, there is very little. Yes, this will take quite a lot to actually post evidence in thorough detail. But, I'm not just going to accept your interpretation of hieroglyphics just because you say it is right. But, again, please reserve this detailed work for your own thread.

 

 

Yes. This is my intention to start another thread; something along the lines "how the pyramids were really built". I'm not sure of the tactics or strategy yet. Frankly, I've tried almost everything many times and even my supporters tend to be doubtful about many aspects. They are doubtful because I can provide intimate detail about construction and what the builders actually believed. I can tell you what most of the "scepters" really were and how they originated. I can show what most features of the pyramids and their "aprons" were for and even details about little known struictures and features. People don't seenm to believe I can understand the writing and get into the heads of the authors by reading English translations.

 

There's no reason anyone should necessarily believe I can explain many of the glyphys and understand a means of communication that no longer exists. There is the fact though that this theory all hangs together and makes accurate predictions even though it is counter to basic beliefs of nearly all people.

I sometimes take part to discussions about religion or philosophy, and after a while, the same feeling surges: nothing can be observed for real so anything can be said. What I suggest when it happens is to try to improve our notions of what intelligence is about, which means for me to plug my idea about how the mind physically works. Without any physical limit to respect, one can say anything he wants about everything. Some of you reproach me to be unscientific. This is wrong but I can't prove it. Of course my ideas are only ideas for the moment, but they are precisely ideas about the limits we should always be giving to our ideas.

 

I too try philosophical discussions but so many people bring so many axes to these discussions. It seems progress in these is very difficult to achieve but it is easier in this venue to have complicated ideas understood.

 

True knowledge is visceral. This isn't to say other knowledge isn't real or isn't true so much as to say most of our actions are predicated on belief and defined only by visceral knowledge. Certainly this latter appliies to scientists to a lesser degree than other people. There's no reason that a person with complex visceral knowledge might come upon an idea that hasn't been studied before and is accurate. Ideas are events and they are the result of events. They are correlated with knowledge and especially the kind of knowledge we know forward and backward or visceral knowledge. It's what you know in your bones. Ideas and human progress have little or nothing to do with what people call "intelligence" because it virtually doesn't exist at all.

[Strange]

True knowledge is visceral.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the word "visceral"?

Yes. This is my intention to start another thread

 

You will also have to explain how your theory relates to the other afroasiatic / semitic languages. And why the same arguments do not apply to other language families.

[Le Repteux]

Ideas are events and they are the result of events. They are correlated with knowledge and especially the kind of knowledge we know forward and backward or visceral knowledge. It's what you know in your bones. Ideas and human progress have little or nothing to do with what people call "intelligence" because it virtually doesn't exist at all.

You are studying the historical part of our ideas, so you call them events, and I am studying their physical part, so I call them motions. I guess I finally found a way to mix the two ideas: tying motion to evolution with the rope of change and resisting to change. Acceleration and resisting to acceleration for a body in motion, change and continuity for a society in evolution, change and resisting to change for ideas in evolution. To understand what I mean, I think that you only have to understand that there is no resistance to acceleration without an acceleration, and transpose the principle to our ideas, which then means that the resistance that we think others offer voluntarily to our ideas is completely subconscious, thus involuntary. Does that fit your thinking about the language?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[cladking]

 

Can you explain what you mean by the word "visceral"?

 

 

They are correlated with knowledge and especially the kind of knowledge we know forward and backward or visceral knowledge. It's what you know in your bones.

 

You will also have to explain how your theory relates to the other afroasiatic / semitic languages. And why the same arguments do not apply to other language families.

 

 

 

I believe the change from a single metaphysical language to numerous modern languages occured about 2000 BC.

 

Only a single language was affected by the change. There were dialects of this language but there were few words. These words often survived the collapse of the ancient language and are mistaken for distinct languages. The vocabulary was very little affected by the change, it's the way the words are put together to express meaning that changed.

[cladking]

It really appears to me that you don't have any interest in actually discussing your idea, because you know in your bones you are right, and how dare anyone question such a fundamental and obviously right belief.

 

I strongly believe that if the science were done at Giza I'd be proven at least mostly correct.

 

I know in my bones what the result of a simple thread will be. I've done it many times before from every angle on a mutitude of sites.

 

Frankly I wish people would question me more and the more expertise they have the better.

 

I doubt there is anything important about how they built the Great Pyramid. What's important is why it's not being studied.

[Le Repteux]

I just scanned your thread and can't see where you were treated in a rude fashion or were personally attacked. People attacked your idea, which is to be expected in a science discussion. I can't find the word crank or crackpot in that thread.

.....

 

And you seem to have equated "disagreed with the idea" with "personal attack".

You are absolutely right about my thread, I scanned it too and realized that I am mixing reactions to a similar thread on another forum, and reactions of xyzt on another subject here. I have a problem of discrimination I guess, I am getting old. But I am also on the defensive because of the personal attacks I had, and probably partly because I am getting old too.

 

So you have not distinguished this so-called "resistance to change" from the correct attitude of "resisting the adoption a wrong idea".

 

I repeat: resisting to change is the correct attitude, otherwise, my theory says that things would not even exist. It is the way people use to convince others that is not correct: if you see that a person is a lot weaker than you, you don't hit him if he only yells at you. Even if I know that a person is wrong about a personal theory, I will never try to degrade him like some people do on different scientific forums. This is precisely the reason for that topic by the way, otherwise it is fun to discuss our new ideas even if some don't agree with them or if they think they are not scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Here are those three laws (from wiki):

1. First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.^[2][3]
2. Second law: . The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
3. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Tell me where these laws explain how the different bodies that are actually on an inertial motion in the universe continue to do so. What do they do to respect those three laws? How do they proceed? Do they use a computer and check that they do not contravene them at each second they make a step forward?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Le Repteux

[cladking]

Apparently. Once again you are making up your own unique meanings.

 

 

No. Everyone has his own unique definition for every word and no one seems to notice. They don't even notice when they start talking about two different subjects. Most people don't even notice that no word has a meaning at all until it's used in context and context can modify word meaning by implying various connotations as well as the listeners' estimation of the definitional characteristics.

 

Language doesn't really work well for communication so it may as well work as smoothly as possible for thought. Usually it's not really so much "changing" a definition as it is selecting the most appropriate word and building a construct of it with a single definition. I guess I've always "thought like an Egyptian" and never knew it.

 

I don't suppose you could actually define what you think "observation" means without all that waffle?

 

 

Like all of reality, it is far more complex than a single word. "Observation" is the ability to see root causes using knowledge gained from language and gathered by your senses in the light of previous experience.

 

Not that difficult.

 

 

If one tries to teach it most students will learn.

 

This is a problem in this country; it's not being taught.

 

Only if you share that definition. Science uses a lot of terms with specialised meanings. But the definitions are readily available. Talking to you is like conversing through a program that makes random word substitutions. (And apparently it is our fault, not yours.)

 

 

You can't understand word meanings from context without making an attempt. My words are so alien because I don't think like you do. But reality, which is what we're all trying to study, exists outside of the way people think for 4000 years. The words you or I choose to describe reality are simply irrelevant to how nature works. Nature has hew own laws and we seek them and then we seek to share observations and experimental reults through language.

 

 

Poorly. As you repeatedly demonstrate. (But here it seems to be your defintion vs everyone else's definition.)

 

 

I don't share your perspective and I am doing the best I know how to both use your perspective to communicate and to help you see my perspective. This is the nature of modern language.

 

Dick: Okay then what happened tom what did you do after you fell in there (a vat of chocalate)

Tom: I yelled fire

[singing]

Tom: I yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate, I yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate

Dick: Tom why did you yell fire when you fell into the chocolate

All: Laly do dum lally do dum day

[talking]

Tom: Well

Dick: Now I want you to think about it, it must have been a very traumatic experience

Tom: Oh its just a horrible experience I had chocolate all over me I was summing around

Dick: What possessed you to yell fire when you in this vat of liquid, chocolate, there was no fire. you where in the chocolate and you yelled fire thats pretty ridicules if you ask me

Tom: It certainly is

[singing]

Tom: I just yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate

Dick: Tom why did you yell fire when you fell into the chocolate

Tom: Why I yelled fire because no one would save me if I yelled CHOCOLATE!!

 

http://www.lyricszoo.com/the-smothers-brothers/chocolate/

 

Reality exists outside of our experience. We try to decode reality through observation. When it is done methodically (metaphysically) through experiment and experimental results it is called (modern) science. We see these results through the experience of thought driven by langauage.

 

Language provides a perspective from which we see what we know and can't see what we don't know.

Edited September 26, 2014 by cladking

[swansont]

 

Here are those three laws (from wiki):

1. First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.^[2][3]
2. Second law: . The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object.
3. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Tell me where these laws explain how the different bodies that are actually on an inertial motion in the universe continue to do so. What do they do to respect those three laws? How do they proceed? Do they use a computer and check that they do not contravene them at each second they make a step forward?

 

What part of "this is off-topic for this thread" didn't you understand?

[Strange]

 

No. Everyone has his own unique definition for every word and no one seems to notice.

 

Obviously not true or people would not be able to communicate.

 

There are a small number of people who insist on making up their own meanings for words, which makes communication hard. But on the other hand, crumble fractuate ping wimple fish.

 

Language doesn't really work well for communication ...

 

Riiiight.

 

If one tries to teach it most students will learn.

 

So you agree that you were wrong when you said it was difficult to teach. Was that a deliberate lie? Or do you change your mind every 5 minutes? Or is it because the word "difficult" actually means "easy" in your idiolect?

 

You can't understand word meanings from context without making an attempt.

 

You don't provide any context to provide a meaning for "scalar question". As you refuse to explain what you mean, I deduce it translates to "shameless garbage".

 

My words are so alien because I don't think like you do.

 

I can only thank God that I do not "think" like you do. I am a professional writer so I would be unemployed (unemployable) if I wrote like you.