Paradoxes of physics resolved using my methods.

[Huang]

I came on here one time and attempted to model something, and some
smart asses said that my thoughts constituted "word salad". I really
cant remember who said that, but clearly, my ideas are taking shape
and making lots of sense to lots of people. I really dont care if
anyone likes it or not, in fact I'd prefer that they didnt. That way
I'll know that Im getting the most extreme criticism possible.

Unfortunately, nobody seems capable of assembling any type of decent
counter-arguments or proof of any kind that what Im saying is
incorrect.

Here's my work on paradox, and existential indeterminacy:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

If that link does not work, then search FaceBook for "Mathematics and
Conjectural Reasoning for Math & Physics"

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 11:19 AM, Huang wrote:
>
> I came on here one time and attempted to model something, and some
> smart asses said that my thoughts constituted "word salad". I really
> cant remember who said that, but clearly, my ideas are taking shape
> and making lots of sense to lots of people. I really dont care if
> anyone likes it or not, in fact I'd prefer that they didnt. That way
> I'll know that Im getting the most extreme criticism possible.

And on the matter of the title of this thread, let's get clear what
you're talking about when you say "paradoxes of physics".

The word paradox means two things, and the difference in definition is
crucial.

1. Paradox can mean a true logical contradiction. A true logical
contradiction is where the same theory makes two directly conflicting
statements. There are, as far as I know, no paradoxes of this sort in
physics, and so there is nothing to resolve.

2. Paradox can also mean something that *appears* to be contradictory,
but then upon further inspection is found not to be a contradiction at
all. This is a little like a puzzle, and puzzles are common as teaching
exercises meant to raise to the surface some common misconceptions where
they can be corrected. Resolving a paradox here means simply correcting
that misconception so that a better understanding of the situation is
achieved.

Which meaning are you using?

[Huang]

One very nice paradox is the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM which
undermines the possibility of observing anything objectively, and so
physics itself becomes an impossibility in accordance with it's own
findings. You dont find that to be the least bit paradoxical ?

Feynman himself said that physics makes no sense. I'll take his word
over yours.

Einstein believed that the universe is deterministic. But according to
Bohr, "quit telling god what to do" ... it is stochastic. So, to the
man on the street, physics must simultaneously be both deterministic
and nondeterministic. We cant really choose Einstein over Bohr or vice
versa, so it must be the case that they are both right, because your
field has failed to invalidate either of those guys. For something to
be both random and nonrandom simultaneously ... I would call that a
paradox.

It's pretty obvious that Im right about this stuff otherwise you would
have check-mated me with facts instead of fluster a long, long time
ago.

[PD]

Not at all. Physics does NOT -- contrary to your erroneous assumption --
fall apart as an endeavor if the detectors have to be included in the
physical system being studied. In fact, it is an erroneous assumption
that physical systems CAN be studied as though the detectors are not there.

>
> Feynman himself said that physics makes no sense. I'll take his word
> over yours.

Then you have taken his words out of context. He said that we cannot
reconcile some of the things we see with our *common sense*. That does
not constitute a failure of anything but our common sense, which is
frequently unreliable.

You can take whatever soundbites you want. This does not mean that you
have a good grip on the situation, any more than someone who reads only
headlines in the paper gets an accurate feel for the news of the day.

>
> Einstein believed that the universe is deterministic.

That's right. And he himself proposed a number of experiments which
proved himself wrong. Which is what a good scientist does.

> But according to
> Bohr, "quit telling god what to do" ... it is stochastic. So, to the
> man on the street, physics must simultaneously be both deterministic
> and nondeterministic.

That's what a superficial look might say, but that isn't what's really
true. There are some behaviors which can be described deterministically
and some which cannot. The error comes in saying that the same adverb
should apply to everything -- that of course is naive oversimplification.

> We cant really choose Einstein over Bohr or vice
> versa, so it must be the case that they are both right, because your
> field has failed to invalidate either of those guys. For something to
> be both random and nonrandom simultaneously ... I would call that a
> paradox.

Physics does not say that the same thing is both random and nonrandom.
That is a characterization that you, a man on the street, has made, and
it's wrong.

>
> It's pretty obvious that Im right about this stuff otherwise you would
> have check-mated me with facts instead of fluster a long, long time
> ago.
>

No, you don't get it. Physics is not settled by checkmates and logical
arguments. That's not how physics is done at all.

There are LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of crackpots who come in saying, "If I
were wrong, they'd be able to make me realize where I'm wrong, and then
I'd have to shut up. And since they haven't been able to make me realize
any such thing, and since I'm still talking, then I must be right."
That's a fool's strategy. Even a baked turkey leg can't be convinced
it's wrong about something.

If you believe there are paradoxes in science, then I GUARANTEE YOU that
this is due to a very poor and superficial understanding of what science
actually says. The good news is that this is correctable. But this
requires both determined choices and serious work on your side to learn
what science actually says. Keep in mind that you can also make
determined choices and do serious work on other activities that do not
produce any learning of what science actually says, but those choices
and work would be wastes of your time.

[Huang]

> If you believe there are paradoxes in science, then I GUARANTEE YOU that
> this is due to a very poor and superficial understanding of what science
> actually says. The good news is that this is correctable. But this
> requires both determined choices and serious work on your side to learn
> what science actually says. Keep in mind that you can also make
> determined choices and do serious work on other activities that do not
> produce any learning of what science actually says, but those choices
> and work would be wastes of your time.

If you believe that there are no paradoxes, then I can guarantee you
that it is not due to my misunderstanding, but your denial of the
obvious facts.

In Einstein's day at least they had the integrity to call a paradox
what it is. These days people simply deny their presence and go on
writing their science fiction for what may very well be corrupted
journals. I saw an ad on Freelancer.com looking for someone to invent
a theory and submit it to a jorunal. How ridiculous is that.

Shrodingers Cat ? Shrodinger himself said it was. You cannot make
things go away by simply denying them. It dont work that way. I refuse
to shut up and calculate. And if the scientific community cant make
sense of things, then the amateurs will. I've already done it and am
more content with my own work than anything I've read from mainstream
physicists who are probably all just hanging out on freelancer.com
looking for the next big bag of cash to fall out of the sky on their
latest research project.

There you see, you have been placed in check. There is no way out of
this argument. You are trapped and I have won.

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 5:45 PM, Huang wrote:
>> If you believe there are paradoxes in science, then I GUARANTEE YOU that
>> this is due to a very poor and superficial understanding of what science
>> actually says. The good news is that this is correctable. But this
>> requires both determined choices and serious work on your side to learn
>> what science actually says. Keep in mind that you can also make
>> determined choices and do serious work on other activities that do not
>> produce any learning of what science actually says, but those choices
>> and work would be wastes of your time.
>
>
> If you believe that there are no paradoxes, then I can guarantee you
> that it is not due to my misunderstanding, but your denial of the
> obvious facts.
>
> In Einstein's day at least they had the integrity to call a paradox
> what it is.

As I said, there are two meanings of paradox. If you cannot discern
which meaning was being used in the case at hand, then I suggest you
avoid using the term.

If someone tells you "Excuse me, I have to go pee. Where's the head?"
and you then look in a dictionary and as a result point to your own
skull, then you have no one to blame for your own idiocy.

> These days people simply deny their presence and go on
> writing their science fiction for what may very well be corrupted
> journals.

If you are going to tell yourself that science is now all a vast
conspiracy of lies and that you can believe nothing, then you might as
well walk away from the endeavor, because you are seeking recognition
from a discipline and people in that discipline you do not trust. That
is a fool's game.

> I saw an ad on Freelancer.com looking for someone to invent
> a theory and submit it to a jorunal. How ridiculous is that.

It's pretty ridiculous. No physicist posted that.

>
> Shrodingers Cat ? Shrodinger himself said it was. You cannot make
> things go away by simply denying them. It dont work that way. I refuse
> to shut up and calculate.

If you do not calculate, then what remains of what you do cannot be
called science. Sorry, fact of life.

> And if the scientific community cant make
> sense of things, then the amateurs will.

But they CAN make sense of things. That's not your complaint. The
complaint is that it doesn't make sense TO YOU. But this is because you
have only had the barest, superficial exposure to it. You've invested
practically zero effort to learning physics. It's NO WONDER you don't
understand it. Fortunately, this is correctable through choices and work
on your part.

> I've already done it and am
> more content with my own work than anything I've read from mainstream
> physicists who are probably all just hanging out on freelancer.com
> looking for the next big bag of cash to fall out of the sky on their
> latest research project.

I'm glad it brings you joy. That is not the purpose of doing science.
Science is about advancing *collective* knowledge using the scientific
method. If you do not wish to engage in that process and your happier
doing what you do, that's fine. Just DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF BY CALLING IT
SCIENCE.

>
> There you see, you have been placed in check. There is no way out of
> this argument. You are trapped and I have won.
>

You don't win arguments by declaring victory, Huang. Conrad Countess on
this group does the same thing, and he is CLEARLY insane.

Physics IS NOT ABOUT winning arguments. It IS NOT ABOUT games of mental
chess.

[Huang]

You gave two "definitions" of paradox.

1. Paradox can mean a true logical contradiction. A true logical
contradiction is where the same theory makes two directly conflicting
statements. There are, as far as I know, no paradoxes of this sort in
physics, and so there is nothing to resolve.

2. Paradox can also mean something that *appears* to be
contradictory,
but then upon further inspection is found not to be a contradiction
at
all. This is a little like a puzzle, and puzzles are common as
teaching
exercises meant to raise to the surface some common misconceptions
where
they can be corrected. Resolving a paradox here means simply
correcting
that misconception so that a better understanding of the situation is
achieved.

--------------------------------------

Your definition #2 isnt really a paradox at all, but simply an
"unsolved problem or riddle".

However, definition #1 is much more along the lines of what I'm
talking about and physics is literally rife with these kinds of
situations.

Denial is sometimes defined as convincing one's self of untrue ideas
in order to make one's self feel more comfortable, and abandoning
truth in the process even though the truth is pretty obvious.

Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
denial. And science, real science can be performed in a wide variety
of ways as long as the scientific method is observed and this can be
accomplished with, or without mathematics. I have explained these
things many times. There are tools other than math which would serve
perfectly well in place of it.

[Huang]

> > >> If you believe there are paradoxes in science, then I GUARANTEE YOU that
> > >> this is due to a very poor and superficial understanding of what science
> > >> actually says.

And you should read what it says on Wikipedia, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox


Physics is BRIMMING with paradoxes, things that make absolutely no
sense whatsoever, and you guys are perpetuating a culture of denial. I
am NOT saying that physics is wrong, or that paradox is evil, nor do I
think that paradox is indicative of any type of flaw. But physicists
seem to believe that, and so they DENY that paradoxes even exist.

That is absurd.

Paradox is EVERYWHERE in physics starting with Planck Length and going
all the way through to the Big Boing. And wherever you find one of
these paradoxes, you'll find some guy with a sheepskin claiming that
it's not a paradox, that if you make your head flat enough you'll be
able to wrap your mind around the idea of simply accepting the status
quo on FAITH. And I'd like to know where faith fits into the
definitions of either science, or empiricism.

Modern physics is getting less like science, and more like voodoo.

[Huang]

> But they CAN make sense of things. That's not your complaint. The
> complaint is that it doesn't make sense TO YOU. But this is because you
> have only had the barest, superficial exposure to it. You've invested
> practically zero effort to learning physics. It's NO WONDER you don't
> understand it. Fortunately, this is correctable through choices and work
> on your part.

I've already done the hard work of figuring out where physics and math
went wrong, and explaining a correct framework by which things can be
set straight.

Your job is very easy. Just read my solution. But you cant even do
that.

> > I've already done it and am
> > more content with my own work than anything I've read from mainstream
> > physicists who are probably all just hanging out on freelancer.com
> > looking for the next big bag of cash to fall out of the sky on their
> > latest research project.
>
> I'm glad it brings you joy. That is not the purpose of doing science.
> Science is about advancing *collective* knowledge using the scientific
> method. If you do not wish to engage in that process and your happier
> doing what you do, that's fine. Just DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF BY CALLING IT
> SCIENCE.

Well it IS science. And this may come as a big shock to you, but there
really ARE tools other than mathematics upon which valid science can
be built. Math does not have a monopoly on anything. And it would take
a very narrow mind to slip through the cracks and escape the
realization that what Im saying is in fact correct.

No paradoxes in physics ? ROFLMAO !!!!!

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 11, 4:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip to the crash)

> Physics is unfortunately littered with ... real paradoxes...

Please name five, in five unrelated fields of physics. (NOT math)


Mark L. Fergerson

[Huang]

[1] The universe existed before it possibly could have. There is no
such thing as 1/2 of a Planck Time.

[2] EPR paradox.

[3] The free will "debate" is not a debate at all, it is an actual
paradox and you simply have a bunch of arguing idiots on both sides
who wont even entertain the idea that it is an irresolvable paradox.

[3] (a) Causality is really no different than this in my opinion so it
needs mentioning but in fairness I call it 3)a) instead of [4],
because I'll have no trouble at all finding the very arbitrary 5 you
requested.

[4] Ya know what's paradoxical is the human element. Physicists
routinely commit the fallacy of reification by saying that the
universe is either stochastic or nonstochastic depending whether they
are doing QM, astro-phys, standard mechanics, thermo-d, or whatever.
Call themselves "scientists" but walk around committing the fallacy of
reification day in and day out ... that is voodoo. And the paradox is
that the human brain has become so twisted that it is capable of
drawing these kinds of "true = false" types of conclusions. That's a
good paradox for ya, the mentality of the physics community itself.
Hah.

[5] Schrödinger's cat is a real paradox.

But I'll give you #6

[6] The fact that paradox could be a component of our universe.
Paradox could be an inescapable a fact of life, an unavoidable fixture
of spacetime. Any real "scientist" would have an open mind toward this
notion. I've been accused of doing "non-science" and that's
ridiculous. It's better science to be aware of this possibility than
to be intimidated by some strageness and go around denying observed
phenomena simply because paradox is difficult to stomach.

[Huang]

I shall not be told that what I am doing is "not science", nor that it
is "not empirical" simply because it is not mainstream, or because I
use tools for quantification which are "other than mathematics".
Sorry, but there is no 11th commandment that says that math has a
monopoly on truth. Descartes was only half right, and it is my finding
that mathematics ... the entire body of mathemnatics ... does indeed
have a dual.

This dual is equally good in ALL respects for making models of nature
as mathematics is, and people are invited to disagree with me on that.
But you have my sympathies in advance, because it's an argument that
you cannot win. Not because Im a crank like JSH, but because there
simply are no arguments against what Ive been saying.

[PD]

That's not so. It IS a paradox, just an alternate definition.

>
> However, definition #1 is much more along the lines of what I'm
> talking about and physics is literally rife with these kinds of
> situations.

No, it's not. When you hear physicists use the word "paradox" they are
using definition 2, not definition 1.

There is a misconnect in communication here. You hear the word "paradox"
and you only RECOGNIZE definition 1, when definition 2 was intended by
the speaker. Thus you simply did not understand the intent of the
speaker when that word was used.

There ARE NO paradoxes of the first kind in physics. The examples you
have provided so far are ALL examples of the 2nd kind, where there is
only an APPARENT contradiction that is due to superficial understanding.

>
> Denial is sometimes defined as convincing one's self of untrue ideas
> in order to make one's self feel more comfortable, and abandoning
> truth in the process even though the truth is pretty obvious.
>
> Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
> denial.

No real paradoxes, not of the first kind anyway. Sorry.

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 7:40 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>>>>> If you believe there are paradoxes in science, then I GUARANTEE YOU that
>>>>> this is due to a very poor and superficial understanding of what science
>>>>> actually says.
>
>
> And you should read what it says on Wikipedia, for example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

You see? This is a PERFECT example of the usage of the term in the 2nd
sense, not the first sense.

There is no true internal contradiction in the EPR paradox. It was only
an apparent contradiction that was based on Einstein's assumption of the
principle of locality. It turned out that Einstein was wrong, and that
the principle of locality is simply not a feature of nature. Thus,
quantum mechanics, which DOES NOT CONTAIN the principle of locality, has
no internal contradiction.

>
>
> Physics is BRIMMING with paradoxes, things that make absolutely no
> sense whatsoever, and you guys are perpetuating a culture of denial.

I'm sorry, but the ONLY kind of paradoxes in physics are ones of the
second kind. There ARE NONE presently of the first kind.

It may be emotionally important to you that physics is rife with
internal consistencies, but it's simply a mischaracterization.

> I
> am NOT saying that physics is wrong, or that paradox is evil, nor do I
> think that paradox is indicative of any type of flaw. But physicists
> seem to believe that, and so they DENY that paradoxes even exist.
>
> That is absurd.
>
> Paradox is EVERYWHERE in physics starting with Planck Length and going
> all the way through to the Big Boing.

What do you think is paradoxical about those?

[john]

Deny, deny, deny............
Electrons that don't require energy to move.
Light that doesn't require energy to move.
Unlimited 'pulling' force of some
kind, still undetected, coming from all matter.
Gravity that crushes things smaller and smaller
making black holes that nothing comes out of (but
lots comes from right by where its
going in) and continue eating forever but
somehow don't ever eat the remaining stars right beside
them- as a matter of fact, new stars are always forming
right beside them- what's that all about?)

Oh, yeah, PD.
Emperor...............
Clothes.............

john

[Huang]

> > Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
> > denial.
>
> No real paradoxes, not of the first kind anyway. Sorry.

The shortest unit of time is 1 Planck Time. When the universe was
born ... what exactly was is doing at 1/2 Planck Time if there is no
such thing as 1/2 of 1 Planck Time ?

No paradoxes eh ?

Look, I hate to beat anyone so badly in an argument, it just does not
make me look like a nice person at all. It clearly is a paradox, a
real one, and there are perfectly reasonable solutions which can be
found on my FaceBook page.

In fact, denying that paradoxes exist in physics ... 60 years after
Kurt Godel .... this is really swimming against the current.

Universe is stochastic because of QM. Universe is nonstochastic
because of Relativity and Newton. So, the universe is both stochastic
and nonstocastic. In other words, True = False and this is again _not_
a paradox ???

Is that what I am to believe ? lol - I can get better lies from FOX
News at a fraction of the cost of tuition.

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 10:12 PM, Huang wrote:
>> But they CAN make sense of things. That's not your complaint. The
>> complaint is that it doesn't make sense TO YOU. But this is because you
>> have only had the barest, superficial exposure to it. You've invested
>> practically zero effort to learning physics. It's NO WONDER you don't
>> understand it. Fortunately, this is correctable through choices and work
>> on your part.
>
>
> I've already done the hard work of figuring out where physics and math
> went wrong, and explaining a correct framework by which things can be
> set straight.
>
> Your job is very easy. Just read my solution. But you cant even do
> that.

I'd be happy to read your solution if it were science. But it's not.

>
>
>
>
>>> I've already done it and am
>>> more content with my own work than anything I've read from mainstream
>>> physicists who are probably all just hanging out on freelancer.com
>>> looking for the next big bag of cash to fall out of the sky on their
>>> latest research project.
>>
>> I'm glad it brings you joy. That is not the purpose of doing science.
>> Science is about advancing *collective* knowledge using the scientific
>> method. If you do not wish to engage in that process and your happier
>> doing what you do, that's fine. Just DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF BY CALLING IT
>> SCIENCE.
>
>
> Well it IS science. And this may come as a big shock to you, but there
> really ARE tools other than mathematics upon which valid science can
> be built. Math does not have a monopoly on anything. And it would take
> a very narrow mind to slip through the cracks and escape the
> realization that what Im saying is in fact correct.

I'm sorry, but physics *requires* definite, quantitative, testable
predictions which are then compared to observational measurement. This
is not optional in science. You cannot produce *definite* and
*quantitative* predictions without the ability to calculate. If you
declare that this should not be necessary in science, then you simply
have a disagreement with scientists about what science is.

>
> No paradoxes in physics ? ROFLMAO !!!!!

Laugh all you want. Any logical inconsistencies you perceive in physics
are ONLY due to your very shallow understanding of what science actually
says.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 10:32 AM, Huang wrote:

>
> I shall not be told that what I am doing is "not science", nor that it
> is "not empirical" simply because it is not mainstream, or because I
> use tools for quantification which are "other than mathematics".
> Sorry, but there is no 11th commandment that says that math has a
> monopoly on truth. Descartes was only half right, and it is my finding
> that mathematics ... the entire body of mathemnatics ... does indeed
> have a dual.

You certainly have the liberty of telling yourself whatever feels good.
A poet who writes about atomic nuclei can tell himself all day that what
he's doing is science. This, however, would be a statement only for his
own self-gratification.

Science is a *communal* activity by nature. As such, there are communal
requirements, such as common language and common processes for
dissemination and acceptance of advances. If you are happy to take the
hermited, unconnected stance where you simply don't care what scientists
think, then feel free to do so, with the understanding that by walking
away from those communal conventions, nothing you do will ever penetrate
into the community BY YOUR CHOICE.

>
> This dual is equally good in ALL respects for making models of nature
> as mathematics is, and people are invited to disagree with me on that.
> But you have my sympathies in advance, because it's an argument that
> you cannot win. Not because Im a crank like JSH, but because there
> simply are no arguments against what Ive been saying.
>
>

And I reiterate to you that the activity of doing physics is NOT ABOUT
winning arguments. You can stand there all day and insist that you have
not been convinced otherwise. You can stand there all day and insist
that because you have not been convinced otherwise, then you have won
something. What you think you've won is not of interest to anyone but you.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 12:27 PM, john wrote:

>>
> Deny, deny, deny............
> Electrons that don't require energy to move.

Nothing consumes energy when it moves. That is called Newton's first
law, due to Galileo, from the early 17th century. Are you sure you want
to say this is wrong?

> Light that doesn't require energy to move.
> Unlimited 'pulling' force of some
> kind, still undetected, coming from all matter.

And in fact, the *same* charged ping-pong ball is *observed* to push
away one thing and to attract another. I don't really care if you find
it unbelievable that such a thing can happen. A third grade science
teachers shows her students this all the time. Did you miss that day?

> Gravity that crushes things smaller and smaller
> making black holes that nothing comes out of (but
> lots comes from right by where its
> going in) and continue eating forever but
> somehow don't ever eat the remaining stars right beside
> them-

They continue eating things that cross their event horizon and don't eat
things that don't cross their event horizon. What is hard about that?
Notice that the force of gravity is toward the sun, but that the force
of gravity has FAILED to push the earth into the sun for the last four
BILLION YEARS. Do you find such ordinary facts also unbelievable?

> as a matter of fact, new stars are always forming
> right beside them- what's that all about?)
>
> Oh, yeah, PD.
> Emperor...............
> Clothes.............
>
> john

What is astounding to me, John, is that you insist that ORDINARY things
that happen EVERY DAY in plain view, just cannot happen because you
don't understand HOW they happen.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 12:48 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>>> Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
>>> denial.
>>
>> No real paradoxes, not of the first kind anyway. Sorry.
>
>
> The shortest unit of time is 1 Planck Time. When the universe was
> born ... what exactly was is doing at 1/2 Planck Time if there is no
> such thing as 1/2 of 1 Planck Time ?

Why are you dividing time up as though it is continuous? That's the
WHOLE POINT of the Planck time -- that there is no such thing as a time
in between 0 and 1 Planck time. It goes in WHOLE STEPS with no between.
Just like there is no such thing as a half a carbon atom.

The contradiction is not internal at all. It is that an idea conflicts
with YOUR erroneous assumptions about nature. YOU assume that time is a
completely continuous variable and that between any two times you can
ALWAYS find a time half way in between that physically exists. That
assumption conflicts with the Planck time, and so you perceive a
contradiction. That is not a conflict internally in physics. It is a
conflict between a statement in physics and a FALSE assumption that you
are making. That's not a contradiction.

>
> No paradoxes eh ?
>
> Look, I hate to beat anyone so badly in an argument, it just does not
> make me look like a nice person at all. It clearly is a paradox, a
> real one, and there are perfectly reasonable solutions which can be
> found on my FaceBook page.
>
> In fact, denying that paradoxes exist in physics ... 60 years after
> Kurt Godel .... this is really swimming against the current.

Be careful. What do you think Kurt Godel said?

>
> Universe is stochastic because of QM. Universe is nonstochastic
> because of Relativity and Newton.

No. Nothing in relativity says nature is nonstochastic. Einstein
believed that nature is nonstochastic, but that had nothing to do with
relativity. He in fact worked on quantum mechanics completely separately
from his work in relativity -- did you know that? And Einstein was
wrong. And so was Newton.

> So, the universe is both stochastic
> and nonstocastic. In other words, True = False and this is again _not_
> a paradox ???

Again, the problem is not with physics but with your understanding of
physics.

[Huang]

> > Universe is stochastic because of QM. Universe is nonstochastic
> > because of Relativity and Newton.
>
> No. Nothing in relativity says nature is nonstochastic. Einstein
> believed that nature is nonstochastic, but that had nothing to do with
> relativity. He in fact worked on quantum mechanics completely separately
> from his work in relativity -- did you know that? And Einstein was
> wrong. And so was Newton.
>
> > So, the universe is both stochastic
> > and nonstocastic. In other words, True = False and this is again _not_
> > a paradox ???
>
> Again, the problem is not with physics but with your understanding of
> physics.

My problem is not with my understanding physics, but my being
understood by physicists. And that is an even greater challenge
because I doubt they understand physics much in the first place.

So Einstein is wrong. God plays dice. Why ? Just because QM scribble
is based on probability theory ? This is fallacy of reification at
it's finest. The tangible, physical universe, nature, must be
stochastic, just because we have models based on random variables
which seem accurate.

News flash. Substitute pseudo-random variables based on chaos in place
of random variables in QM and the whole damn thing becomes non-
stochastic. So is Einstein still wrong ?

lol

No-paradoxes.

Made my day.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 12:48 PM, Huang wrote:
>

The bottom line here is that you aren't getting what you want -- a nice,
ordered, consistent picture -- from the superficial contact with the
subject of physics that you've had.

Oversimplification yields absolutes that don't really exist.
For example, you say that Einstein did not believe in a nonstochastic
universe and it is true that Einstein put forward relativity and that
scientist do believe he was right about relativity. But you then stitch
those together incorrectly to say that relativity must say the universe
is nonstochastic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Einstein was
right about relativity and he was wrong about the universe being
nonstochastic. There is nothing contradictory about that -- they were
two DIFFERENT subjects that he worked on.

You believe, apparently, that if Newton was wrong about a nonstochastic
universe, then he must have been wrong about EVERYTHING, and that if
that were true then Newton and his work would be discredited. And that's
not right. He was right about a lot of things, just not about some things.

That does NOT translate into Newton = Right and Newton = Wrong ==>
contradiction.

If it were, then people everywhere would be wrong all the time or right
all the time. Do you really believe that?

There are no contradictions in physics. There is only APPARENT
contradiction that comes from oversimplification and making of false
absolutes.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 1:38 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>>> Universe is stochastic because of QM. Universe is nonstochastic
>>> because of Relativity and Newton.
>>
>> No. Nothing in relativity says nature is nonstochastic. Einstein
>> believed that nature is nonstochastic, but that had nothing to do with
>> relativity. He in fact worked on quantum mechanics completely separately
>> from his work in relativity -- did you know that? And Einstein was
>> wrong. And so was Newton.
>>
>>> So, the universe is both stochastic
>>> and nonstocastic. In other words, True = False and this is again _not_
>>> a paradox ???
>>
>> Again, the problem is not with physics but with your understanding of
>> physics.
>
>
> My problem is not with my understanding physics, but my being
> understood by physicists. And that is an even greater challenge
> because I doubt they understand physics much in the first place.

No, I'm sorry, but you don't understand physics. I could demonstrate
this with about 3 freshman questions in about two minutes. Are you
willing to try to back up your claim that you understand physics, or are
you going to admit to yourself that you may be lacking in some basics?

>
> So Einstein is wrong. God plays dice.

Yes.

> Why ? Just because QM scribble
> is based on probability theory ?

No. Because Einstein proposed an experiment, outlined in the EPR paper,
which would test whether he was right or wrong. And he made a bet about
how the experiment would turn out. And he was wrong. And quantum
mechanics gets the answer right.

That's how you judge whether a theory is right or wrong in physics --
whether it accurately predicts experimental observations. At least,
that's core to the scientific method. If you believe this is a
fallacious approach, then simply confess that you disavow the scientific
method. Then it's clearly a position that you have no interest in doing
science if it means adhering to the scientific method.

> This is fallacy of reification at
> it's finest. The tangible, physical universe, nature, must be
> stochastic, just because we have models based on random variables
> which seem accurate.

Yes, that's the way science works. The model that most accurately
reproduces measured observations in the broadest set of circumstances is
the one that is accepted among all currently prevailing competitors, and
that model is taken to be representative of how the universe really
works. If you don't like that, then you're simply saying you don't trust
the scientific method. That's fine. Then science isn't for you.

>
> News flash. Substitute pseudo-random variables based on chaos in place
> of random variables in QM and the whole damn thing becomes non-
> stochastic.

No it doesn't. There are clear tests that distinguish these two, and
those tests have been done.

> So is Einstein still wrong ?

Yes. About the stochastic nature of the universe, he's still wrong.

>
> lol
>
> No-paradoxes.

That's right. No paradoxes.

I can see that there are things that you refuse to believe. But that's
not a paradox. That's just a conflict between experimentally tested
scientific theories and your expectations of how nature SHOULD work.

>
> Made my day.
>
>

[Huang]

On Jan 12, 1:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 12:48 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
> >>> Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
> >>> denial.
>
> >> No real paradoxes, not of the first kind anyway. Sorry.
>
> > The shortest unit of time is 1 Planck Time. When the universe was
> > born ... what exactly was is doing at 1/2 Planck Time if there is no
> > such thing as 1/2 of 1 Planck Time ?
>
> Why are you dividing time up as though it is continuous? That's the
> WHOLE POINT of the Planck time -- that there is no such thing as a time
> in between 0 and 1 Planck time. It goes in WHOLE STEPS with no between.
> Just like there is no such thing as a half a carbon atom.
>
> The contradiction is not internal at all. It is that an idea conflicts
> with YOUR erroneous assumptions about nature. YOU assume that time is a
> completely continuous variable and that between any two times you can
> ALWAYS find a time half way in between that physically exists. That
> assumption conflicts with the Planck time, and so you perceive a
> contradiction. That is not a conflict internally in physics. It is a
> conflict between a statement in physics and a FALSE assumption that you
> are making. That's not a contradiction.

Sounds like a well reasoned argument, for a moment, a really short
one, like maybe 1/2 a Planck Time.

Why dont you tell that to your colleagues who are constantly proposing
models of what the universe was doing at precisely 10^(-90) seconds or
whatever nonsense they are babbling about. Fairy tales. That's where
the money goes. If I want fairy tales I can get em on NetFlix. Physics
should be about truth, logic, empiricism, lab results. Instead you get
politics, grandstanding, superstars, supression, and all kinds of
other human influences. Im glad Im not part of that, the culture must
be nearly intolerable.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 2:33 PM, Huang wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:26 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2012 12:48 PM, Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Physics is unfortunately littered with both real paradoxes and real
>>>>> denial.
>>
>>>> No real paradoxes, not of the first kind anyway. Sorry.
>>
>>> The shortest unit of time is 1 Planck Time. When the universe was
>>> born ... what exactly was is doing at 1/2 Planck Time if there is no
>>> such thing as 1/2 of 1 Planck Time ?
>>
>> Why are you dividing time up as though it is continuous? That's the
>> WHOLE POINT of the Planck time -- that there is no such thing as a time
>> in between 0 and 1 Planck time. It goes in WHOLE STEPS with no between.
>> Just like there is no such thing as a half a carbon atom.
>>
>> The contradiction is not internal at all. It is that an idea conflicts
>> with YOUR erroneous assumptions about nature. YOU assume that time is a
>> completely continuous variable and that between any two times you can
>> ALWAYS find a time half way in between that physically exists. That
>> assumption conflicts with the Planck time, and so you perceive a
>> contradiction. That is not a conflict internally in physics. It is a
>> conflict between a statement in physics and a FALSE assumption that you
>> are making. That's not a contradiction.
>
>
> Sounds like a well reasoned argument, for a moment, a really short
> one, like maybe 1/2 a Planck Time.

It's like asking whether a chunk of graphite is made of N atoms of
carbon or 2N half-atoms of carbon. There is no such thing as a half-atom
of carbon. It makes no difference whether you think it's a well-reasoned
question at all.

>
> Why dont you tell that to your colleagues who are constantly proposing
> models of what the universe was doing at precisely 10^(-90) seconds or
> whatever nonsense they are babbling about.

They certainly aren't proposing models of what happened at half a Planck
time. That's something YOU made up, possibly in eager search of a
contradiction, even if it's a made-up one.

> Fairy tales. That's where
> the money goes. If I want fairy tales I can get em on NetFlix. Physics
> should be about truth, logic, empiricism, lab results.

And it IS. The claims about quarks, for example, are ALL based on lab
results. The search for dark matter is based on observation and lab
tests. That is the WHOLE POINT of physical theories, is to find a way to
test whether the theory is right or wrong.

If you believe that accepted theories are fairy tales, then perhaps you
are not aware of the lab results that have been put forward to test
them. That is fixable with some choices on your part. If, on the other
hand, you choose NOT TO BELIEVE the lab results, then you put the lie to
your own statement that physics should be about truth, logic, empiricism
AND LAB RESULTS.

> Instead you get
> politics, grandstanding, superstars, supression, and all kinds of
> other human influences. Im glad Im not part of that, the culture must
> be nearly intolerable.

Every community -- whether it's in the practice of law, architecture,
music, medicine, computer engineering, or psychology -- has its
complement of prima donnas and internal politics. Physics is no
different. Why do you think that physics would be different than any
other human endeavor?

Since you're not a physicist, I presume you are active in another
profession. Are you telling me that your own profession doesn't suffer
from the same quirks and foibles?

[Huang]

That interpretation of what I actually said makes about as much sense
as the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. Just because the point you are
making is trivial does not mean that you should enjoy all of the other
properties of triviality such as pulling rabbits out of your hat. I
never even suggested half of the thing you are claiming here. But do
go on.

[Huang]

lol - there are even physicists who are devising theories about what
happened BEFORE this big bang.

But how does physics explain that the universe even had a beginning,
when there is no such thing as 1/2 of one Planck Time ?

You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a continuous
universe, and a discrete universe. But you have not been able to jam
the square peg into the round hole. You want a stochastic universe,
and a nonstochastic universe, all at the same time. There really is
only one way that any of that is feasible, and that is by saying that
these things are equivalent.

But there's no money in actually solving problems ... all the big
money comes from perpetuating the never ending quest for the obvious.
lol

[PD]

On 1/11/2012 11:19 AM, Huang wrote:
>
>

> Here's my work on paradox, and existential indeterminacy:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071
>
> If that link does not work, then search FaceBook for "Mathematics and
> Conjectural Reasoning for Math& Physics"
>

I looked at your facebook profile and a couple of your videos.
It is amusing work, but you're advertising on usenet to the wrong
groups. This wholly belongs to a philosophy group.

It is CLEARLY not mathematics, and in fact you disavow needing to use
mathematics at all to produce positive investigative results. So why
post something that is not mathematics on a mathematics newsgroup?

It is also CLEARLY not physics, because it does not involve the
scientific method and so is not science. And in fact, you imply that
science and the scientific method cannot be trusted because it has
produced (so you say) nonsense, and so some OTHER non-science-based
approach must be taken. So why post something that is not science on a
science newsgroup?

This is CLEARLY philosophy, and yet you do not post there.

So this calls into question your motivation. You obviously want some
exposure and attention. What better way to get lost in the noise by
posting something philosophical on a philosophy group, along with
hundreds of other contributors? Much better to draw attention by
sticking out, by posting something that is off topic -- a philosophical
diversion on a math group or a physics group.

This really has to do with the balance between the need for attention
and self-confidence. If you have self-confidence and you believe you are
truly making a good contribution, then you will post your philosophical
work in the mix of other philosophical contributors. If you have no
self-confidence or doubt the value of your work, then the defensive
gesture is to post to a place where at least you'll get some attention,
because you don't believe you'd get recognition for good work anyway. So
why not make a little irrelevant noise?

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 3:44 PM, Huang wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2:55 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> lol - there are even physicists who are devising theories about what
> happened BEFORE this big bang.
>
> But how does physics explain that the universe even had a beginning,
> when there is no such thing as 1/2 of one Planck Time ?

I'm sorry, but why do you insist that if there is a 0 Planck time and
there is a 1 Planck time, there MUST BE a 1/2 of one Planck time. Why do
you *insist* that time *must* be continuous?

Obviously, if you want to hold in your head simultaneously a
*physicist's* contention that time is discrete AND *your* contention
that time is continuous, then clearly these would be contradictory. But
that is not an internal contradiction in physics, that is a
contradiction between a *physicist's* statement and *your* statement.

>
> You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a continuous
> universe, and a discrete universe.

Who says we want both? Again with the oversimplifications.
You say physicists want both a stochastic AND a nonstochastic universe,
a continuous time AND a discrete time -- but neither of these are true
statements. Physicists DON'T want that.

I have no idea where you got the impression that they DO want that. But
I can guarantee that what you've read on the subject is superficial, and
you've made oversimplistic, absolute generalizations.

[PD]

You did in fact say that physicists claim the universe is nonstochastic
BECAUSE OF relativity. That is a flat-out error.

You say that physicists want BOTH a stochastic and a nonstochastic
universe. That is a flat-out lie.

As for whether physics makes *sense* to you, that is something that you
get from *studying* physics. If you only have a superficial
understanding of what physics says -- as you do -- then it is NOT
POSSIBLE for it all to make sense.

Where did you ever get the expectation that physics should all make
sense to those who have never studied it in any depth?

Do you expect biochemistry to make sense to those who have never studied
it? What about international commerce law? What about structural
engineering?

[Huang]

On Jan 12, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/2012 11:19 AM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's my work on paradox, and existential indeterminacy:
>

> >http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

>
> > If that link does not work, then search FaceBook for "Mathematics and
> > Conjectural Reasoning for Math&  Physics"
>
> I looked at your facebook profile and a couple of your videos.
> It is amusing work, but you're advertising on usenet to the wrong
> groups. This wholly belongs to a philosophy group.

Actually, it belongs to three different areas because of it's
importance to each. Math, Physics, and Philosophy. Technically my
approach is interdsciplinary based on all 3 areas.

And it's kind of amusing that there is so much academic in-fighting
between these groups, but progress CAN be made by someone like me who
is not subject to the pathetic pedagogical politics and power
struggles bla bla bla. I am free of that crap and that is my
advantage. My freedom from academia has helped me to see solutions to
problems more clearly. I wouldn't have it any other way.

> It is CLEARLY not mathematics, and in fact you disavow needing to use
> mathematics at all to produce positive investigative results. So why
> post something that is not mathematics on a mathematics newsgroup?

Careful - some parts of what I say are indeed mathematics. Other parts
are not. Some are pure philosophy. Some are genuine physics, but not
in a form that you've ever seen before.

I seriously doubt that you've ever seen anyone doing valid empirical
science, namely physics, in the absence of mathematics. But that is
exactly what I have accomplished.

My main area of interest is the study of a construct which I'm calling
"Conjectural Modelling". The reason why it is being crosspostexd to
sci.math is quite simple. It has direct relevance to mathematics. Any
Mathematical statement can be reworded into a Conjectural statement
and vice versa. So that is why this is relevant to mathematics. Does
that make sense now ?

> It is also CLEARLY not physics, because it does not involve the
> scientific method and so is not science. And in fact, you imply that
> science and the scientific method cannot be trusted because it has
> produced (so you say) nonsense, and so some OTHER non-science-based
> approach must be taken. So why post something that is not science on a
> science newsgroup?

In fact much of what Ive been doing is indeed physics, because I have
learned that it is possible to do valid empirical science with
Conjectural Modelling and so this tool can be ap[plied to make models
of nature and I do believe, if I am not mistaken, that the proper word
for this is PHYSICS. Certainly it is science, and no less empirical
than what you've seen before.

> This is CLEARLY philosophy, and yet you do not post there.
>
> So this calls into question your motivation. You obviously want some
> exposure and attention. What better way to get lost in the noise by
> posting something philosophical on a philosophy group, along with
> hundreds of other contributors? Much better to draw attention by
> sticking out, by posting something that is off topic -- a philosophical
> diversion on a math group or a physics group.

My motivation is none of your business but if you must know it's
because I like to impress the ladies with my math prowess and so
admittedly this is a tactic for me to get laid. And it works. A lot.

> This really has to do with the balance between the need for attention
> and self-confidence. If you have self-confidence and you believe you are
> truly making a good contribution, then you will post your philosophical
> work in the mix of other philosophical contributors. If you have no
> self-confidence or doubt the value of your work, then the defensive
> gesture is to post to a place where at least you'll get some attention,
> because you don't believe you'd get recognition for good work anyway. So
> why not make a little irrelevant noise?

Your posts have more to do with your frustration and inability to stay
on topic. You cannot even address a single point Ive raised on the
FaceBook page, in the videos, or anywhere else. I've even got a $500
reward out there for anyone who can prove me wrong. If Im wrong, then
PROVE it and collect the CASH. You cannot. There are no
counterexamples - because Im right.

And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.

[Huang]

> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
> apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
> interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.

Anyway, these UseNet debates get lame pretty fast. You guys have been
feeding the trolls in here for years which is why I dont hang around
much anymore, it is endless and not productive.

But I do credit many of you at least in part for my discoveries
because if it had not been for all the adrenaline that I got from
sci.physics I probably would have never got as far as I did. I have
this theory pretty much completely nailed down and I wouldnt say that
if I didnt believe it.

I do not think that there is any way to argue against it. I have
tried, continuously, and it only led to an expansion of the theory
itself. Always leads to more validation. So I come on here hoping to
find someone who can shoot me down. And you've tried, and I appreciate
it. But you've failed to find any errors in my theories. And I'm
nearly certain now that there are none.

Whatever the case, I am not the kind of person who publishes in
academic journals. They wouldnt publish my stuff anyway. But if anyone
wants to read the truth I shall continue to post my results publicly
as I feel that truth is the providence of all men and that only a liar
would ever keep such a thing secret.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 12, 8:32 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:07 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 2:01 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 11, 4:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (snip to the crash)
>
> > > > Physics is unfortunately littered with ... real paradoxes...
>
> > >   Please name five, in five unrelated fields of physics. (NOT math)
>
> > >   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> > [1] The universe existed before it possibly could have. There is no
> > such thing as 1/2 of a Planck Time.

Last things first; I cheerfully agree that there can't by definition
be such a thing as 1/2 of a Planck time.

I don't see the sense of the first sentence though; it implies there
was a time when it was NOT possible for the Universe to exist and that
later (I'm assuming one Planck time later) there was a time it could
exist, but what, they came in the wrong order? Please elucidate.

A naive reading of the BB theory can go something like "at some
Planck time 0, there was no Universe. Then, one Planck time later,
there was one". The problem with that line of thought is the "before
the BB" part- there WASN'T ANY TIME AT ALL before it. At least, not
any time in which events could occur that we might differentiate the
long-range consequences from out of say the CMBR.

There's a nice experiment for you, long on empiricism and short on
math. Just find an unambiguous pattern in the CMBR pointing to a
specific event 60, 80, or 100 billion ears ago. It doesn't have to
meet any number of sigmas, or fit anybody's topologically contrived
mortise, it just has to be a pattern that any uneducated person would
point to and say "That part isn't random". (obviously not the galaxy's
shadow or like that)

The hard part's been done for you; the CMBR's been imaged all over
the spectrum and it's all over the net.

Find us some evidence of an event preceding the big bang instead of
just asserting that there were some.

> > [2] EPR paradox.

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

"EPR argued that they had proved that ... particle B can have
simultaneously exact values of position and momentum."

This does *not* violate the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship
which says that the more precisely *we measure* one property A of a
particle the less precisely *we can measure* its complementary
property B. It doesn't assert that they don't both exist at the same
time, just that we can't precisely measure both at the same time. EPR
isn't about measuring both properties of the same particle anyway. We
measure property A of one particle, then we measure B *of the other
particle* and deduce its complement of the first particle. Not the
same at all.

Greene misses the point that the particles began as complementary
and must stay that way. No surprise their properties will be
complementary. Same for entanglement.

> > [3] The free will "debate" is not a debate at all, it is an actual
> > paradox and you simply have a bunch of arguing idiots on both sides
> > who wont even entertain the idea that it is an irresolvable paradox.

There's a saying in QM: "all that is not forbidden is compulsory".

From the spacetime event that is me sitting in this chair, it would
seem there are an infinite (large, anyway) number of things that I
*might* do next (within the constraints of physics- I won't turn into
a chervil), but we know that after the fact we will see that there
will be only *one* thing I actually do next. Hence, there is an
infinity (large number)-minus-one number of things that I will *not*
do next. Does that mean all of the latter are/were "forbidden"? No, I
think it means that they, and the thing I actually do, are all
*allowed* under the so-called laws of physics and that I am free to
choose from among them.

It should go "all that is not forbidden is allowed".

I prefer to see free will as an emergent property of organized,
patterned matter (brains).

> > [3] (a) Causality is really no different than this in my opinion so it
> > needs mentioning but in fairness I call it 3)a) instead of [4],
> > because I'll have no trouble at all finding the very arbitrary 5 you
> > requested.

Covered above. In the absence of "free will", determinacy maximizes
entropy. Rocks fall down mountains, but are occasionally carried back
up. AFAIK they *never* fall up on their own.

> > [4] Ya know what's paradoxical is the human element. Physicists
> > routinely commit the fallacy of reification by saying that the
> > universe is either stochastic or nonstochastic depending whether they
> > are doing QM, astro-phys, standard mechanics, thermo-d, or whatever.

I rarely care what people say. I'm more interested in what they can
do. I'd love to have a determinist explain how specific unstable
isotopes have specific half-lives, and how to predict them from some
characteristic(s) of the isotope.

"Predict" them, not look them up in a table. The data in the table
were gathered experimentally.

> > Call themselves "scientists" but walk around committing the fallacy of
> > reification day in and day out ... that is voodoo. And the paradox is
> > that the human  brain has become so twisted that it is capable of
> > drawing these kinds of "true = false" types of conclusions. That's a
> > good paradox for ya, the mentality of the physics community itself.
> > Hah.

That's largely because science in general is still wet behind the
ears and strongly influenced by personal prejudices until they're
exposed. It's a work in progress, remember?

Humans have practiced cognitive dissonance for far longer than
science has existed.

> > [5] Schrödinger's cat is a real paradox.

Cats are too large to participate in superpositions of course; on
the particle level it's no paradox at all. SQUIDs work, superposition
is real.

> > But I'll give you #6
>
> > [6] The fact that paradox could be a component of our universe.
> > Paradox could be an inescapable a fact of life, an unavoidable fixture
> > of spacetime. Any real "scientist" would have an open mind toward this
> > notion. I've been accused of doing "non-science" and that's
> > ridiculous. It's better science to be aware of this possibility than
> > to be intimidated by some strageness and go around denying observed
> > phenomena simply because paradox is difficult to stomach.
>
> I shall not be told that what I am doing is "not science", nor that it
> is "not empirical" simply because it is not mainstream, or because I
> use tools for quantification which are "other than mathematics".
> Sorry, but there is no 11th commandment that says that math has a
> monopoly on truth. Descartes was only half right, and it is my finding
> that mathematics ... the entire body of mathemnatics ... does indeed
> have a dual.

I don't really give a rat's ass about math for science's sake; math
can *support* empiricism, but it doesn't drive it. There's a lot of
elegant, consistent math that does *not* describe reality. Let's not
bandy words like "truth" around without carefully defining them, shall
we?

Nor am I impressed with dualism. Reality displays other, more
complex symmetries.

As has been said you can call what you do "science" but unless you
follow the scientific method (not "use specific math", note), it
isn't.

I'm interested in the part of the scientific method called
"prediction" because it's *testable*.

Do you have something testable?

> This dual is equally good in ALL respects for making models of nature
> as mathematics is, and people are invited to disagree with me on that.

Got a *predictive* model? Can you predict the half life of say
carbon 14 without looking it up somewhere?

> But you have my sympathies in advance, because it's an argument that
> you cannot win. Not because Im a crank like JSH, but because there
> simply are no arguments against what Ive been saying.

I'm not interested in winning, either. I'm interested in finding out
how Nature does what it does so we can find new ways to decrease our
entropy.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Huang]

On Jan 12, 9:29 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:32 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 8:07 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 2:01 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 11, 4:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > (snip to the crash)
>
> > > > > Physics is unfortunately littered with ... real paradoxes...
>
> > > >   Please name five, in five unrelated fields of physics. (NOT math)
>
> > > >   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> > > [1] The universe existed before it possibly could have. There is no
> > > such thing as 1/2 of a Planck Time.
>
>   Last things first; I cheerfully agree that there can't by definition
> be such a thing as 1/2 of a Planck time.
>
>   I don't see the sense of the first sentence though; it implies there
> was a time when it was NOT possible for the Universe to exist and that
> later (I'm assuming one Planck time later) there was a time it could
> exist, but what, they came in the wrong order? Please elucidate.

My wording is bad. Regardless, there is a way to integrate when you
have something like Planck Time and calculus works just fine, except
at the endpoints.

To speak of what happened before the big bang ... to me this is no
different than doing math on things which are by definition
nonexistent. And that is "almost" a good definition of nonsense.

>   A naive reading of the BB theory can go something like "at some
> Planck time 0, there was no Universe. Then, one Planck time later,
> there was one". The problem with that line of thought is the "before
> the BB" part-  there WASN'T ANY TIME AT ALL before it. At least, not
> any time in which events could occur that we might differentiate the
> long-range consequences from out of say the CMBR.
>
>   There's a nice experiment for you, long on empiricism and short on
> math. Just find an unambiguous pattern in the CMBR pointing to a
> specific event 60, 80, or 100 billion ears ago. It doesn't have to
> meet any number of sigmas, or fit anybody's topologically contrived
> mortise, it just has to be a pattern that any uneducated person would
> point to and say "That part isn't random". (obviously not the galaxy's
> shadow or like that)
>
>   The hard part's been done for you; the CMBR's been imaged all over
> the spectrum and it's all over the net.
>
>   Find us some evidence of an event preceding the big bang instead of
> just asserting that there were some.

Whoa nellie ... I never said there were any. I'm not particularly
popular among BB proponents anyway because I feel that cosmic
expansion and contraction are motions of spacetime and therefore must
be subject to the same considerations as different frames of reference
in Relativity. I do _not_ have any math to back that up, but I dont
see why redshift would neccesarily imply global expansion and not a
local contraction, and this carries over to all of the other
supportive findings which are used to support the expansion model.
Expansion and contraction must be equivalent. It's a simple affine
transform just like motion ... I dont know why physicists shriek in
terror and run away when I say it.

You can convince yourself of that and I wont argue with you. Nor can I
agree. I believe that stochastic and non-stochastic are equivalent. If
it were up to me I would have Einstein and Bohr shake hands and
compromise. Each one of them gets half of the baby. Stochastic and non-
stochastic are equivalent. That is how you chop the baby in two. Both
should be happy.

>   It should go "all that is not forbidden is allowed".
>
>   I prefer to see free will as an emergent property of organized,
> patterned matter (brains).
>
> > > [3] (a) Causality is really no different than this in my opinion so it
> > > needs mentioning but in fairness I call it 3)a) instead of [4],
> > > because I'll have no trouble at all finding the very arbitrary 5 you
> > > requested.
>
>   Covered above. In the absence of "free will", determinacy maximizes
> entropy. Rocks fall down mountains, but are occasionally carried back
> up. AFAIK they *never* fall up on their own.
>
> > > [4] Ya know what's paradoxical is the human element. Physicists
> > > routinely commit the fallacy of reification by saying that the
> > > universe is either stochastic or nonstochastic depending whether they
> > > are doing QM, astro-phys, standard mechanics, thermo-d, or whatever.
>
>   I rarely care what people say. I'm more interested in what they can
> do. I'd love to have a determinist explain how specific unstable
> isotopes have specific half-lives, and how to predict them from some
> characteristic(s) of the isotope.
>
>   "Predict" them, not look them up in a table. The data in the table
> were gathered experimentally.

That is quite easy in fact. Here is a recipe to do just that.

Start with a simple random function to model the isotope. Lets say it
will decay at time = t, and RND is a random variable or function for
the sake of argument

Our function looks like this

t = RND

where the output looks like a bell curve I think it's e^(t/k) or
something like that, I forget the exact formula, but you know what I
mean. Please dont make me look it up, it's trivial.

Now then, this next step is very easy.
You have a pseudorandom variable based on chaos where the output
exactly mimics the output from the random function above. You merely
substitute the chaos in place of the RND function and all of a sudden
your isotope dont look so random no more.

It is that easy. Substitution.

You're not interested in dualism ... hmmm. That's an interesting
statement ... serious question have you seen this type of stuff
elsewhere ?

Anyway, yes. I have lots of things that are testable. Anything which
is testable using physics models based on Mathematics would likewise
be testable using physics models based on Conjectural Reassoning. The
only difference is the underlying philosophy, but globally there are
additional implications similar which would make you think of Godel.

For example ... the most simply physics experiment. Counting fingers
on your hand.

The physicist assumes the existence of fingers because of some strange
conglomeration of math, empiricism, and Rene Descartes.

But you can still count fingers without being certain of their
existence. Start with "Maybe I think therefore maybe I am". Existence
is uncertain, but as you know .999... = 1.
So, you can be uncertain of existence of fingers and if you count each
one of them as .999... your numbers will crunch the same as someone
doing math. You do NOT have to certain of the existence of things in
order to do valid empirical testing. The only reason people fall back
on Descartes and insist on being absolutely certain of existence is
because this is the western tradition and my feeling is that it is
incomplete. And that is why people thought, incorrectly, that QM was
incomplete. It is not. The only thing which is truly incomplete is the
fact that math is recognized by academia, but it's dual is not. And
that is where the incompleteness comes from.

> > This dual is equally good in ALL respects for making models of nature
> > as mathematics is, and people are invited to disagree with me on that.
>
>   Got a *predictive* model? Can you predict the half life of say
> carbon 14 without looking it up somewhere?

If I have a decent model then I'd say I can predict pretty much
anything described by the model.

What I will say is that if I had a Mathematical model of the decay in
question, I should be able to do two things.

[1] It should be possible to write a model based on chaos which
exactly mimics the output of a random variable, so that there is no
way to say if the decay is stochastic or not.

and
[2] It should be possible (indeed it is possible) to rewrite the
original model in the form of Conjectural Modelling. The results
would be different philosophically, but numerically identical to the
mathematical results. If you really want to see it I'll do it.

> > But you have my sympathies in advance, because it's an argument that
> > you cannot win. Not because Im a crank like JSH, but because there
> > simply are no arguments against what Ive been saying.
>
>   I'm not interested in winning, either. I'm interested in finding out
> how Nature does what it does so we can find new ways to decrease our
> entropy.
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

I just like to argue.

[Tim Little]

On 2012-01-12, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously, if you want to hold in your head simultaneously a
> *physicist's* contention that time is discrete AND *your* contention
> that time is continuous, then clearly these would be contradictory.
> But that is not an internal contradiction in physics, that is a
> contradiction between a *physicist's* statement and *your*
> statement.

Which physicists state that time is discrete? None of the currently
accepted models in physics are based on discrete time.


At best, I've seen statements that perhaps spacetime *might* behave
differently at the Planck scale, due to problems reconciling quantum
theories and general relativity at that scale. Speculative imagery
and terms like "spacetime foam" crop up.

I haven't seen any statement by any physicst that these speculations
actually lead to time and/or space being discrete, nor that they are
observed fact. The only evidence for "spacetime foam" I've heard of
is negative, placing upper bounds on some of its possible predicted
effects.


So as far as I'm aware, current physics doesn't put Planck time to be
any sort of "shortest possible" time interval. At best, it's a sort
of "possibly not meaningful" time interval, in the sense that our
familiar notions of time and location might become inapplicable around
there somewhere. Even that requires assuming certain features of both
QFT and GR still apply at those scales, which in my opinion seems
unlikely given how far beyond our current observational evidence they
lie.


--
Tim

[Tim Little]

On 2012-01-13, nu...@bid.nes <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Last things first; I cheerfully agree that there can't by definition
> be such a thing as 1/2 of a Planck time.

I seriously don't get where this statement comes from. Planck time is
_defined_ just as a particular combination of natural constants. Do you
also think that there can be no such thing as 1/2 a Planck mass, which
is similarly defined?

Any significance it might have comes from being a scale where some of
the concepts from QFT and GR theories imply some sort of problem if
both hold, but each theory is fine at those scales taken alone.
Certainly neither of them treat spacetime as discrete at tha scale.

I think chances are that one or both will cease to be good
approximations of nature long before we observe those scales anyway.
We have never greatly extended our scale of observations without
running into new physics. I think it takes quite a bit of arrogance
to suppose that *our* models, unlike any before, correctly extrapolate
outside our current scales of observation.


--
Tim

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 12:18 am, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:

Well, you can regard Planck Time as being just some type of
technically derived effect if you wish. But even if you do that, for
purposes of this debate, you would still have Planck Length to deal
with and most people would agree that it is not merely an artifact of
some distillation of algebraic soup. It's a real, tangible effect. I
believe that both Planck Time and Planck Length are genuine tangible
phenomena, I dont have any problem accepting that.

The problem is how and why these things can possibly happen.

Now, ... physicists and mathematicians dont like to talk about
"nonexistence" or "partial existence" or "quasi-existence" because it
leads to all kinds of frustrations, hurt feelings, arguments,
miscommunication, erroneous thinking, etc. So they avoid these topics.
To speak of such things with a bunch of mathematicians is kind of like
bringing a Playboy magazine to church on Sunday. People just dont like
it.

But there are ways to make these things sensible. Highly sensible. A
child could read and understand my FaceBook page. It took me years to
dumb-down enough to be able to reverse engineer the foundational math,
the philosophy, and the physics, but indeed these things do fit
together amazingly well. Contrary to PD's suspicions, I am not a glory
whore. I've been looking for mistakes in this line of reason and every
time I dig into it I only find more reasons why it makes perfect
sense. In fact, physics never made a lick of sense to me until I
started thinking of things this way. Now it all seems quite clear and
I am content with the feeling that I finally understand. That is all I
really care about. I am not a glory whore, or an asshole really ... I
argue like one sometimes but it's all about the adrenaline.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 7:12 PM, Huang wrote:

> In fact much of what Ive been doing is indeed physics, because I have
> learned that it is possible to do valid empirical science with
> Conjectural Modelling and so this tool can be ap[plied to make models
> of nature and I do believe, if I am not mistaken, that the proper word
> for this is PHYSICS. Certainly it is science, and no less empirical
> than what you've seen before.

Here we clearly disagree. Science as an activity is virtually *defined*
by the practice of the scientific method.
You say that you should be allowed to call what you do, which does not
follow the scientific method, also science. (Rather, you say it is
empiricism -- but empiricism is not science.) You can call whatever you
do whatever you want. You can call it performance art if you want. This
does NOT mean that what you call it will be recognized as such by anyone
but the gullible.

>> This is CLEARLY philosophy, and yet you do not post there.
>>
>> So this calls into question your motivation. You obviously want some
>> exposure and attention. What better way to get lost in the noise by
>> posting something philosophical on a philosophy group, along with
>> hundreds of other contributors? Much better to draw attention by
>> sticking out, by posting something that is off topic -- a philosophical
>> diversion on a math group or a physics group.
>
>
> My motivation is none of your business but if you must know it's
> because I like to impress the ladies with my math prowess and so
> admittedly this is a tactic for me to get laid. And it works. A lot.

That's what I thought. This is called "vogueing". It is attempting to
impress people by talking over their heads, knowing full well that the
audience is not competent enough to detect bullshit.

The con man can impersonate a surgeon or a pilot and fool a bunch of
people who don't know better. But a con man who attempts to impersonate
a surgeon in a room full of surgeons is an egregious fool.

>
>
>> This really has to do with the balance between the need for attention
>> and self-confidence. If you have self-confidence and you believe you are
>> truly making a good contribution, then you will post your philosophical
>> work in the mix of other philosophical contributors. If you have no
>> self-confidence or doubt the value of your work, then the defensive
>> gesture is to post to a place where at least you'll get some attention,
>> because you don't believe you'd get recognition for good work anyway. So
>> why not make a little irrelevant noise?
>
>
> Your posts have more to do with your frustration and inability to stay
> on topic.

See my first response to you on this thread. I have no interest in
staying on YOUR topic, because your topic is not science. You want
discussion about the things YOU want to talk about? Then take those
things to a group where you will find people interested in talking about
it. I suggest a philosophy group.

> You cannot even address a single point Ive raised on the
> FaceBook page, in the videos, or anywhere else. I've even got a $500
> reward out there for anyone who can prove me wrong. If Im wrong, then
> PROVE it and collect the CASH. You cannot. There are no
> counterexamples - because Im right.

And as I think I've pointed out to you at least three times in this
thread alone, physics is not about argument. It is not about proof or
disproof. That's not how physics is done.

You're doing something like coming into a game of pick-up basketball and
declaring victory because no one has pinned you to the ground. Had you
engaged in a game of pick-up Greco-Roman wrestling, that would be a
valid challenge. As it is, your declaration of victory is rather misplaced.

>
> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well.

Don't flatter yourself. People on physics newsgroup don't generally get
pissed off when someone comes in with an irrelevancy. It's more like
getting a phone call from someone who has dialed a wrong number.

[PD]

On 1/12/2012 8:01 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
>> apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
>> interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.
>
> Anyway, these UseNet debates get lame pretty fast. You guys have been
> feeding the trolls in here for years which is why I dont hang around
> much anymore, it is endless and not productive.
>
> But I do credit many of you at least in part for my discoveries
> because if it had not been for all the adrenaline that I got from
> sci.physics I probably would have never got as far as I did. I have
> this theory pretty much completely nailed down and I wouldnt say that
> if I didnt believe it.

Once more, you use the word "theory" but you've attached your own
meaning to the word that has nothing in common with how physicists use
that word. As such, your communication with physicists about it will be
futile, because you're not even talking about the same thing.

That may not matter to you. You may be more interested in hearing
yourself talk, in which case communication is not needed.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Huang <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
db5edb7b-5c0e-4008...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com

> On Jan 12, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/11/2012 11:19 AM, Huang wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Here's my work on paradox, and existential indeterminacy:
> >
> > > http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...
> >
> > > If that link does not work, then search FaceBook for
> > > "Mathematics and Conjectural Reasoning for Math& Physics"
> >

[snip]

> > This really has to do with the balance between the need for
> > attention and self-confidence. If you have self-confidence and
> > you believe you are truly making a good contribution, then you
> > will post your philosophical work in the mix of other
> > philosophical contributors. If you have no self-confidence or
> > doubt the value of your work, then the defensive gesture is to
> > post to a place where at least you'll get some attention, because
> > you don't believe you'd get recognition for good work anyway. So
> > why not make a little irrelevant noise?
>
>
> Your posts have more to do with your frustration and inability to
> stay on topic. You cannot even address a single point Ive raised on
> the FaceBook page, in the videos, or anywhere else. I've even got a
> $500 reward out there for anyone who can prove me wrong. If Im
> wrong, then PROVE it and collect the CASH. You cannot. There are no
> counterexamples - because Im right.
>
> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
> apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
> interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.

Arrogant ignorance. The hallmark of the crackpot.

Dirk Vdm

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 11:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 8:01 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
> >> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
> >> apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
> >> interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.
>
> > Anyway, these UseNet debates get lame pretty fast. You guys have been
> > feeding the trolls in here for years which is why I dont hang around
> > much anymore, it is endless and not productive.
>
> > But I do credit many of you at least in part for my discoveries
> > because if it had not been for all the adrenaline that I got from
> > sci.physics I probably would have never got as far as I did. I have
> > this theory pretty much completely nailed down and I wouldnt say that
> > if I didnt believe it.
>
> Once more, you use the word "theory" but you've attached your own
> meaning to the word that has nothing in common with how physicists use
> that word. As such, your communication with physicists about it will be
> futile, because you're not even talking about the same thing.
>
> That may not matter to you. You may be more interested in hearing
> yourself talk, in which case communication is not needed.

I'll give that a 7.5 because it made me chuckle. Otherwise just more
of the same old stuff "you're wrong cuz I say so bla bla bla".

You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your
own facts. And the fact of the matter is that math has a dual and it's
perfectly reasonable to acknowledge it as such. When we do physics
with math the result is all kinds of paradoxes (which people will
deny). But when you make physics models with these alternative tools
the paradoxes vanish.

I can explain to you how the universe works. Not a problem. But as for
the more difficult task of developing some academic integrity, I
really cant help you there. If you see a paradox and simply deny that
it is there, then I am not sure how you can really call that science
either.

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 11:31 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>   db5edb7b-5c0e-4008-8b50-69c5d458d...@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com

Wrong sir - arrogant ignorance is the hallmark of a politician or a
Wall St exec. There is nothing arrogant nor ignorant in anything Ive
ever posted.

Someone once asked Donald Trump "What is the secret of your
success ?", he replied without even thinking about it "Good Genes" was
his reply.

In a culture so steeped in eugenics it does not surprise me that you
would think of yourself as being in a position to determine who is and
is'nt arrogant, or ignorant, but Im not convinced of your skills in
that regard. Have you even been calibrated ? I'd have more faith in a
yardstick than what you might say. lol

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Huang <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

76bef150-ca0c-424d...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com

Indeed, no crackpot would ever acknowledge it.
You're no exception. That's at least one plus -- you are consequent.

Dirk Vdm

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 11:42 AM, Huang wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:08 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2012 8:01 PM, Huang wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And it is my rightness which pisses you off - oh well. You have my
>>>> apologies that you're frustrated. You could at least express some
>>>> interest in my solutions, which just happen to kick ass.
>>
>>> Anyway, these UseNet debates get lame pretty fast. You guys have been
>>> feeding the trolls in here for years which is why I dont hang around
>>> much anymore, it is endless and not productive.
>>
>>> But I do credit many of you at least in part for my discoveries
>>> because if it had not been for all the adrenaline that I got from
>>> sci.physics I probably would have never got as far as I did. I have
>>> this theory pretty much completely nailed down and I wouldnt say that
>>> if I didnt believe it.
>>
>> Once more, you use the word "theory" but you've attached your own
>> meaning to the word that has nothing in common with how physicists use
>> that word. As such, your communication with physicists about it will be
>> futile, because you're not even talking about the same thing.
>>
>> That may not matter to you. You may be more interested in hearing
>> yourself talk, in which case communication is not needed.
>
>
> I'll give that a 7.5 because it made me chuckle. Otherwise just more
> of the same old stuff "you're wrong cuz I say so bla bla bla".

No, I'm not saying you're wrong. Haven't I said this before?--this has
nothing to do with proving you wrong.

What I'm telling you is that what you're doing is not science as
scientists understand that term to mean. You have already *agreed* with
that, because you have already stated that YOUR definition of science is
*different* than how scientists use that term. It is also plain that you
use a whole bunch of other words -- like "theory" -- with a meaning that
is completely different than what scientists understand by those words.

And to underscore the point, definitions are not wrong or right. You
cannot disprove a definition. You can say ALL DAY that your definition
of "science" and "theory" are not wrong. This does not change the fact
that as long as they are different than what other people understand by
those terms, then communication with other people is going to be
*pointless*. The resulting failure to communicate is self-evident and
has NOTHING to do with anyone proving your definition "wrong".

>
> You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your
> own facts. And the fact of the matter is that math has a dual and it's
> perfectly reasonable to acknowledge it as such. When we do physics
> with math the result is all kinds of paradoxes (which people will
> deny). But when you make physics models with these alternative tools
> the paradoxes vanish.
>
> I can explain to you how the universe works. Not a problem. But as for
> the more difficult task of developing some academic integrity, I
> really cant help you there. If you see a paradox and simply deny that
> it is there, then I am not sure how you can really call that science
> either.

Well, you may see fairies that other people don't see, too. I'm telling
you that there are no logical inconsistencies in our current physical
theories, though there are certainly logical inconsistencies in YOUR
statements about our current theories -- but that is due to your very
poor understanding of physics. If you say, "But they're there anyway,
you just can't see them," this has as much weight as you claiming the
existence of invisible spy drones hovering over houses or the existence
of parabolic receivers buried every thirty yards in precisely the
locations where no one is looking for them.

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 11:53 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"

<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

>   76bef150-ca0c-424d-b120-21ca5cf30...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com

Actually I suppose I probably am an arrogant ass. And ignorant too
lol. Im still just as happy as a clam, hah hahhhhhh....

[Huang]

> No, I'm not saying you're wrong. Haven't I said this before?--this has
> nothing to do with proving you wrong.

Here's the definition of science ... according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

I'd like to know where exactly my work, which is actually a theory,
violates the definitions of science as given by Wikipedia. Your making
straw man arguments out of desperation. lol

Here's the definition of "theory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Note that I have given my work a "name" and I call it "Conjecture" ...
this usage is as a title, and differs from the dictionary definition
of the word "conjecture". I could have called it Bob, or Joe, or
whatever, I chose to call it Conjecture. And it is a theory. There is
no reason it wouldn't be. You dont even offer one, you just make silly
claims that it is not. More straw man. The horses must not be very
hungry with all that straw you've got on hand.

> What I'm telling you is that what you're doing is not science as
> scientists understand that term to mean. You have already *agreed* with
> that, because you have already stated that YOUR definition of science is
> *different* than how scientists use that term. It is also plain that you
> use a whole bunch of other words -- like "theory" -- with a meaning that
> is completely different than what scientists understand by those words.

I never agreed to any such thing. You're having a tantrum. A kaniption
fit - lol.

I never said any such thing. That is a flat out fabrication. You cant
even cite, in this thread, where I said any such thing.

> And to underscore the point, definitions are not wrong or right. You
> cannot disprove a definition. You can say ALL DAY that your definition
> of "science" and "theory" are not wrong. This does not change the fact
> that as long as they are different than what other people understand by
> those terms, then communication with other people is going to be
> *pointless*. The resulting failure to communicate is self-evident and
> has NOTHING to do with anyone proving your definition "wrong".

Word games and semantics. That is your only defense. How I pity you,
to have to argue against me knowing that you cannot win. I'd probably
flail a lot too, I dont blame ya.

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 2:01 PM, Huang wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:53 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"

>

> Actually I suppose I probably am an arrogant ass. And ignorant too
> lol. Im still just as happy as a clam, hah hahhhhhh....

Of course you are. Your own activity amuses you. If that's what's
important to you, then by all means just keep talking to hear yourself talk.

If you should decide, however, to try to have any influence, then you
will find that there will be some obligatory concessions for the sake of
communication.

That's the beauty of word salad. There is no requirement that anyone
else toss in the same way.

[Huang]

I didnt see any nonsequiters, strawman or ad hominems this time ...
you are slipping.

Thanks for reaffirming that you have absolutely no argument against
the points which I have raised, the "theories" I have developed, and
the "empirical science" (specifically Physics) which I am doing here,
on this FaceBook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 2:25 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>> No, I'm not saying you're wrong. Haven't I said this before?--this has
>> nothing to do with proving you wrong.
>
>
> Here's the definition of science ... according to wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Indeed. Note this is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia, which does
not offer definitions, but be that as it may....
Note that this very same article that you've referenced yourself
describes the essential ingredient of testable predictions and
experimental confrontation of those predictions against measurement.
Note also the section where it says that mathematics is essential to
science and why.

If you're not going to read an entire article to learn something from
it, then please don't bother citing it. You really don't want to come
across any more foolish and self-serving than you already do.

>
> I'd like to know where exactly my work, which is actually a theory,
> violates the definitions of science as given by Wikipedia. Your making
> straw man arguments out of desperation. lol
>
> Here's the definition of "theory"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Again, here this is an article about theories in general, with a rather
small section on scientific theories. Please note the section in your
own reference here on the subject of "Theories in physics". Again, if
you're not going to bother reading the references you cite, you do so at
your own foolish peril.

>
> Note that I have given my work a "name" and I call it "Conjecture" ...
> this usage is as a title, and differs from the dictionary definition
> of the word "conjecture". I could have called it Bob, or Joe, or
> whatever, I chose to call it Conjecture. And it is a theory. There is
> no reason it wouldn't be. You dont even offer one, you just make silly
> claims that it is not. More straw man. The horses must not be very
> hungry with all that straw you've got on hand.
>
>
>> What I'm telling you is that what you're doing is not science as
>> scientists understand that term to mean. You have already *agreed* with
>> that, because you have already stated that YOUR definition of science is
>> *different* than how scientists use that term. It is also plain that you
>> use a whole bunch of other words -- like "theory" -- with a meaning that
>> is completely different than what scientists understand by those words.
>
>
> I never agreed to any such thing. You're having a tantrum. A kaniption
> fit - lol.
>
> I never said any such thing. That is a flat out fabrication. You cant
> even cite, in this thread, where I said any such thing.

Let's put it this way. I've pointed out where your definition of
"science" and "theory" do not match the understanding of those words as
used by scientists. You have denied that this is the case. However, if
you'll look at some external references -- say for example the very Wiki
articles you cited yourself, or for that matter any college freshman
introductory physics (or chemistry or biology) textbook -- you will see
that this is not just a "What I say vs What you say" situation. If you
don't believe me, then let's consult some external references -- even
the ones you've chosen so far -- and let that settle the matter. If you
believe that external references shouldn't convince you of anything,
then fine, continue to believe WHATEVER you want to believe. That's what
creationists do.

>
>
>> And to underscore the point, definitions are not wrong or right. You
>> cannot disprove a definition. You can say ALL DAY that your definition
>> of "science" and "theory" are not wrong. This does not change the fact
>> that as long as they are different than what other people understand by
>> those terms, then communication with other people is going to be
>> *pointless*. The resulting failure to communicate is self-evident and
>> has NOTHING to do with anyone proving your definition "wrong".
>
>
> Word games and semantics. That is your only defense. How I pity you,
> to have to argue against me knowing that you cannot win. I'd probably
> flail a lot too, I dont blame ya.

Where did you ever get the idea this was a contest or a battle to win?
Why do you keep talking in terms of winning and losing? Physics has
NOTHING TO DO with winning or losing arguments.

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 3:12 PM, Huang wrote:

>
> I didnt see any nonsequiters, strawman or ad hominems this time ...
> you are slipping.
>
> Thanks for reaffirming that you have absolutely no argument against
> the points which I have raised, the "theories" I have developed, and
> the "empirical science" (specifically Physics) which I am doing here,
> on this FaceBook page:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071
>

I believe I've already told you more than once that I have no intention
of arguing against the points you have raised, the "theories" you have
developed (and the quote marks are appropriate there, because they sure
aren't physical theories), and the "empirical science" (which
unfortunately is not physics) you are doing.

That's because they're not science, as that term is understood by
scientists. I think I said that from the start.

So why would I try to argue against something that is completely
off-topic in sci.physics or sci.math?

If all you're doing is finding self-gratification in challenging people
to a verbal duel (this is a childish game on usenet called Prove Me
Wrong!) and declaring victory when no one convinces you that you're
being an idiot, then by all means continue to do so.

Please keep in mind that some people actually encourage participation by
clowns, because they are funny. Even if they are not trying to be clowns.

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 3:12 PM, Huang wrote:
>
>
>
> > I didnt see any nonsequiters, strawman or ad hominems this time ...
> > you are slipping.
>
> > Thanks for reaffirming that you have absolutely no argument against
> > the points which I have raised, the "theories" I have developed, and
> > the "empirical science" (specifically Physics) which I am doing here,
> > on this FaceBook page:
>

> >http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

>
> I believe I've already told you more than once that I have no intention
> of arguing against the points you have raised, the "theories" you have
> developed (and the quote marks are appropriate there, because they sure
> aren't physical theories), and the "empirical science" (which
> unfortunately is not physics) you are doing.
>
> That's because they're not science, as that term is understood by
> scientists. I think I said that from the start.
>
> So why would I try to argue against something that is completely
> off-topic in sci.physics or sci.math?
>
> If all you're doing is finding self-gratification in challenging people
> to a verbal duel (this is a childish game on usenet called Prove Me
> Wrong!) and declaring victory when no one convinces you that you're
> being an idiot, then by all means continue to do so.
>
> Please keep in mind that some people actually encourage participation by
> clowns, because they are funny. Even if they are not trying to be clowns.

My solutions are more sensible, more robust, and more inherently
legitimate than anything you've ever read. Sillyness like this is what
keeps science from taking steps in the right direction, and it will go
in the direction I have suggested. Everything you see on my FaceBook
page is essentially the future of physics. So, if anyone is reading
this and wants to avoid the thread spamming from jokers like this
guy ... head over to my FaceBook page and take a look.

Thanks:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Huang <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

f407dc82-33ff-4a6e...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com

{{subst:uw-spam4}} - ~~~~

Dirk Vdm

[PD]

These are adjectives that have no value in science. In science, the
value of a theory (read your own reference in the Wiki article) is its
ability to accurately predict measurable phenomena. That's it.

Whether it is consistent with common sense is *completely* irrelevant,
as common sense *routinely* gets the wrong answers for things.

I have no idea what you mean by "more robust" or "more inherently
legitimate" or by what performance criteria one would judge a theory to
be so. Do you? Or are those just words you like?

> Sillyness like this is what
> keeps science from taking steps in the right direction, and it will go
> in the direction I have suggested. Everything you see on my FaceBook
> page is essentially the future of physics.

So you say, but as I mentioned to you, this is a hopeless venture until
you are willing to communicate using language with the same meanings as
physicists use them.

> So, if anyone is reading
> this and wants to avoid the thread spamming from jokers like this
> guy ... head over to my FaceBook page and take a look.

Hey, you're the guy that is attention-whoring with an off-topic post in
math and physics groups. Trolling, spamming, whatever you want to call that.

Plus, surely you know that when you post to an unmoderated newsgroup,
you are implicitly inviting comment from any an all participants in the
group. This perhaps is not something you like. So it's better to post in
a venue where you have some control over the responses, like a blog or
like Facebook. Oh, see? You've got the idea already:

>
> Thanks:
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

But you're not getting enough attention on your facebook page and so you
have to troll here?

[Huang]

> >http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

>
> But you're not getting enough attention on your facebook page and so you
> have to troll here?

I dont need attention. I am demanding the unconditional surrender of
your argument because mine is obviously superior.

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 3:55 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Huang <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> f407dc82-33ff-4a6e...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>

> {{subst:uw-spam4}} - ~~~~
>
> Dirk Vdm

I find it interesting that this guy has gone by the moniker Huang Xien
Chen (not his name) for some time, and that a while ago he even did a
Henry Wilson by putting a "Dr." in front of it.

Shameless attention-whoring and masquerade-ball make-up, preening in
front of the mirror on the other side of a trash-covered bed.

[Huang]

On Jan 13, 4:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 3:55 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>

> > Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > f407dc82-33ff-4a6e-8f50-c82e75899...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com

>
> > {{subst:uw-spam4}} - ~~~~
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> I find it interesting that this guy has gone by the moniker Huang Xien
> Chen (not his name) for some time, and that a while ago he even did a
> Henry Wilson by putting a "Dr." in front of it.
>
> Shameless attention-whoring and masquerade-ball make-up, preening in
> front of the mirror on the other side of a trash-covered bed.

I find it interesting that you've become such a fan, but for all the
wrong reasons. lol

When the truth about nature is laid out right in front of you, and all
ya really care about is the silly stuff. Too funny.

News flash - it's a free country. I can pretty much do wtf I want lol.

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 4:15 PM, Huang wrote:

>
>
> I dont need attention. I am demanding the unconditional surrender of
> your argument because mine is obviously superior.
>

And this after all that time I spent telling you that physics has
nothing to do with winning arguments. Physics isn't a contest and there
is no surrender involved with it.

Perhaps you have walked into the wrong newsgroup. Perhaps you wanted
alt.bickering.for.pleasure or rec.pointless.debate.

Perhaps if you unsheathed your yardstick sword from the paper towel tube
tied to your waist and waved it around a little, it might be more
provocative.

[PD]

On 1/13/2012 4:27 PM, Huang wrote:

> On Jan 13, 4:23 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/13/2012 3:55 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>> Huang<huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> f407dc82-33ff-4a6e-8f50-c82e75899...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> {{subst:uw-spam4}} - ~~~~
>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>> I find it interesting that this guy has gone by the moniker Huang Xien
>> Chen (not his name) for some time, and that a while ago he even did a
>> Henry Wilson by putting a "Dr." in front of it.
>>
>> Shameless attention-whoring and masquerade-ball make-up, preening in
>> front of the mirror on the other side of a trash-covered bed.
>
>
> I find it interesting that you've become such a fan, but for all the
> wrong reasons. lol

Fan? No. Highly amused audience member? You bet.
Remember that part about circus acts?

>
> When the truth about nature is laid out right in front of you, and all
> ya really care about is the silly stuff. Too funny.
>
> News flash - it's a free country. I can pretty much do wtf I want lol.

Yes, of course you can. You can put on giant clown shoes and pee your
pants on the street corner if you like.

And you'll draw quite a crowd when you do it.

Go for it.

[Huang]

You guys will do anything to avoid the issues Ive raised.

Paradox
Equivalence
Existential Indeterminacy
Foundations and philosophy of empiricism
Solving math problems with tools which work perfectly in place of math

All of these amazing things to discuss and were stuck on attention
whoring. lol

[PD]

That's because this is not a philosophy group. If you'd like to take up
the topics of paradox, equivalence, existential indeterminacy, and the
foundations and philosophy of empiricism with people interested in
philosophy, I'm sure you'd get much better response.

Likewise, you'll find very few people on this group interested in
discussing Obamacare, the music industry, impressionistic art, aquatic
environmentalism, or evolutionary psychology -- even though those are
all very interesting and amazing topics.

> Solving math problems with tools which work perfectly in place of math

Again, since you are not interested in discussing math, but what might
*replace* math, then I suggest posting to sci.not.math,
sci.better.than.math, or even sci.please.anything.but.math.

>
> All of these amazing things to discuss and were stuck on attention
> whoring. lol

You have your facebook page where you can discuss whatever you like and
you can even delete any comments you don't like about attention-whoring.
But when you attention-whore on unmoderated newsgroups about stuff that
is off-topic to those groups, then you can expect a different experience.

[Huang]

I shoul dbe able to discuss philosophy with any branch of academia
which awards PhDs. After all, it's called a "doctor philosophiae" for
a reason - right ?

Philosophy came before math, before physics, and probably even before
fucking was ever invented.

You are asking me to go elsewhere to discuss philosophy when in fact
physics IS a philosophy, and so is math.

Again, spamming the thread and trying to avoid discussing points Ive
raised which can be found here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

[Huang]

This is the kind of stuff that happens on UseNet which is why it's
useless:

People come on here all the time attacking Einstein, QM, Feynman, and
whoever else. But lots of people attacking Einstein. These people who
do this are idiots who are wrong, and naturally they get flamed.

I havent disagreed with anyone except the status quo ... and of course
the status quo is practically wrong by definition because physics is
non-unified.

I find a way to agree with everyone. My theories agree with Einstein,
QM, and everyone else. It is the ultimate compromise. And this is what
I get. A bunch of ad hominems and spammy replies that dont even
address the topics Ive raised.

I think that people who hang out here too long end up a little like
JSH. The place rubs off on ya. That's what I think. It's a wasteland
of cyberspace. Blech.

Get the truth here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

[YBM]

Le 14.01.2012 00:52, Huang a écrit :
> Philosophy came before math, before physics

Philosophy? Probably. Bad delusional so-called "philosophy" such as your
bunch of crap? Hopefully not.

[PD]

On Jan 13, 6:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the kind of stuff that happens on UseNet which is why it's
> useless:

Good, then why are you here?

>
> People come on here all the time attacking Einstein, QM, Feynman, and
> whoever else. But lots of people attacking Einstein. These people who
> do this are idiots who are wrong, and naturally they get flamed.
>
> I havent disagreed with anyone except the status quo ... and of course
> the status quo is practically wrong by definition because physics is
> non-unified.

What? Non-unified is wrong? Please.

>
> I find a way to agree with everyone. My theories agree with Einstein,
> QM, and everyone else. It is the ultimate compromise. And this is what
> I get. A bunch of ad hominems and spammy replies that dont even
> address the topics Ive raised.
>
> I think that people who hang out here too long end up a little like
> JSH. The place rubs off on ya. That's what I think. It's a wasteland
> of cyberspace. Blech.

Then why are you here?

>
> Get the truth here:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

[PD]

You can certainly attempt to. However, you will find that today,
physics is distinct from philosophy. That's why there are distinct
philosophy and physics groups.

>
> Philosophy came before math, before physics, and probably even before
> fucking was ever invented.
>
> You are asking me to go elsewhere to discuss philosophy when in fact
> physics IS a philosophy, and so is math.

No sir, that is not correct. They are distinct disciplines, and they
are usually even administered in separate colleges at universities.
I have degrees, by the way, in both.

The point, really, is that it doesn't matter what you WANT to be true.
If you come into a group and spam according to the GROUP'S
understanding of what is on topic, then you've spammed. This group is
unmoderated, so you can do what you want. But likewise, you will find
both a lack of interest in your subject and some rebuke about your
obvious lack of adult courtesy. Attention-whores can justify their
whoring elaborately, but it still is attention-whoring.

>
> Again, spamming the thread and trying to avoid discussing points Ive

> raised which can be found here:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

[Huang]

> > You are asking me to go elsewhere to discuss philosophy when in fact
> > physics IS a philosophy, and so is math.
>
> No sir, that is not correct. They are distinct disciplines, and they
> are usually even administered in separate colleges at universities.
> I have degrees, by the way, in both.
>
> The point, really, is that it doesn't matter what you WANT to be true.
> If you come into a group and spam according to the GROUP'S
> understanding of what is on topic, then you've spammed. This group is
> unmoderated, so you can do what you want. But likewise, you will find
> both a lack of interest in your subject and some rebuke about your
> obvious lack of adult courtesy. Attention-whores can justify their
> whoring elaborately, but it still is attention-whoring.

The one good thing that UseNet is really good for is finding people
who aint afraid to fight. That is actually admirable in a world which
is increasingly morphing into a bunch of overly sensitive emotionally
handicapped wimps.

Here's some quick facts:
I can balance my checkbook without using any math at all, and my
methods of reasoning just as accurate as if I had been using math.

I can model things quantitatively without using any math at all, and
those models are equal in accuracy and legitimacy to any mathematical
model Ive ever seen.

I can count things ... without using mathematics ... and my methods of
counting are just as accurate as if I had been using math.

And I suppose that none of this would have any relevance whatsoever to
physics which relies so heavily on mathematics ? lol




obligatory proof that I am an attention whore, or maybe just a whore
lol :
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-for-Math-Physics/184947098190071

[Huang]

Yes I am an attention whore and unworthy of being ravaged by a rabid
platypus.

Fine.

Regardless ... in connection with my findings ... here is a
philosophical sidebar that is a corollary to the overall theory. This
link is philosophical, but related to my other findings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZwPetPIAg&feature=youtu.be

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Huang <huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

ba3fe7c3-55cb-47ab...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

It isn't even philosophy.
More like an out-of-control wet dream.
I hope it makes *you* happy though.
Take care -- and don't eat the yellow snow.

Dirk Vdm

[PD]

On Jan 14, 8:32 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You are asking me to go elsewhere to discuss philosophy when in fact
> > > physics IS a philosophy, and so is math.
>
> > No sir, that is not correct. They are distinct disciplines, and they
> > are usually even administered in separate colleges at universities.
> > I have degrees, by the way, in both.
>
> > The point, really, is that it doesn't matter what you WANT to be true.
> > If you come into a group and spam according to the GROUP'S
> > understanding of what is on topic, then you've spammed. This group is
> > unmoderated, so you can do what you want. But likewise, you will find
> > both a lack of interest in your subject and some rebuke about your
> > obvious lack of adult courtesy. Attention-whores can justify their
> > whoring elaborately, but it still is attention-whoring.
>
> The one good thing that UseNet is really good for is finding people
> who aint afraid to fight. That is actually admirable in a world which
> is increasingly morphing into a bunch of overly sensitive emotionally
> handicapped wimps.

Well, ok then. This is called "trolling". You can google that if you
wish.
You have confused sci.physics with rec.fights.picking.

>
> Here's some quick facts:
> I can balance my checkbook without using any math at all, and my
> methods of reasoning just as accurate as if I had been using math.

See there? That might be a fun demonstration in sci.math. No one in
sci.physics cares about your checkbook or how you do arithmetic
without math.

>
> I can model things quantitatively without using any math at all, and
> those models are equal in accuracy and legitimacy to any mathematical
> model Ive ever seen.

Good, then use your model to accurately provide the quantitative value
of the mass of an object about which a satellite is orbiting with a
period of 2.35E7 seconds at a radius of 1.55E7 km.

You say you can do that. So do it.

>
> I can count things ... without using mathematics ... and my methods of
> counting are just as accurate as if I had been using math.
>
> And I suppose that none of this would have any relevance whatsoever to
> physics which relies so heavily on mathematics ? lol

That's right.

>
> obligatory proof that I am an attention whore, or maybe just a whore

> lol :http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mathematics-and-Conjectural-Reasoning-f...

[PD]

On Jan 14, 1:07 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes I am an attention whore and unworthy of being ravaged by a rabid
> platypus.

Thanks for confessing that.
Now we have at least a common understanding why you are getting the
reception on these groups that you are.

>
> Fine.
>
> Regardless ... in connection with my findings ... here is a
> philosophical sidebar that is a corollary to the overall theory. This
> link is philosophical, but related to my other findings.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZwPetPIAg&feature=youtu.be

You're right. It's off-topic spam.

[Mistress Helios]

I would say that my views are so far gone, they are so wrong, that
they have gone full circle and can even be regarded as beibng correct.
That is how wrong they are. So wrong that they are right.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <jenljn$og6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, on 01/12/2012
at 04:07 PM, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> said:

>Obviously, if you want to hold in your head simultaneously a
>*physicist's* contention that time is discrete

The standard formulations of QM and QFT require a continuous
space-time, and I know of no successful alternative theory involving
quantized space-time, although that is certainly an active research
area. Once we have a viable theory of Quantum Gravity the question may
be clearer.

Of course, this does not invalidate the OP's quest for the KOTM title.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Shmuel Metz]

In <jen7vb$mto$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, on 01/12/2012
at 12:15 PM, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> said:

>Thus, quantum mechanics, which DOES NOT CONTAIN the principle of
>locality, has no internal contradiction.

The proof of PCT invariance assumes locality[1]. Of course, I have no
way of knowing what the OP means by locality.

[1] Expressed in terms of commutation.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <4f10d29e$0$6889$426a...@news.free.fr>, on 01/14/2012

at 01:55 AM, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> said:

>Philosophy? Probably. Bad delusional so-called "philosophy" such as
>your bunch of crap? Hopefully not.

Alas, yes. Full of begging the question and other logical fallacies.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <jepo9k$4l0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, on 01/13/2012
at 11:05 AM, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> said:

>And as I think I've pointed out to you at least three times in
>this thread alone, physics is not about argument.

Not only that, but she/he/it made no reference to who would hold the
money or to who would judge.

[PD]

On Jan 12, 11:55 pm, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote:

> On 2012-01-12, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously, if you want to hold in your head simultaneously a

> > *physicist's* contention that time is discrete AND *your* contention
> > that time is continuous, then clearly these would be contradictory.
> > But that is not an internal contradiction in physics, that is a
> > contradiction between a *physicist's* statement and *your*
> > statement.
>
> Which physicists state that time is discrete?  None of the currently
> accepted models in physics are based on discrete time.

You and I know that, but you notice that this fella Huang seems more
absorbed in an apparent contradiction than in challenging the
statement about how the contradiction is resolved.

A little reverse trolling is highly illuminating.

:)

>
> At best, I've seen statements that perhaps spacetime *might* behave
> differently at the Planck scale, due to problems reconciling quantum
> theories and general relativity at that scale.  Speculative imagery
> and terms like "spacetime foam" crop up.
>
> I haven't seen any statement by any physicst that these speculations
> actually lead to time and/or space being discrete, nor that they are
> observed fact.  The only evidence for "spacetime foam" I've heard of
> is negative, placing upper bounds on some of its possible predicted
> effects.
>
> So as far as I'm aware, current physics doesn't put Planck time to be
> any sort of "shortest possible" time interval.  At best, it's a sort
> of "possibly not meaningful" time interval, in the sense that our
> familiar notions of time and location might become inapplicable around
> there somewhere.  Even that requires assuming certain features of both
> QFT and GR still apply at those scales, which in my opinion seems
> unlikely given how far beyond our current observational evidence they
> lie.
>
> --
> Tim

[alien8er]

(sorry to take so long; between work and helping wife with online
college homework I've been replying to "easy" stuff here for
relaxation- now, back to the hard stuff)

On Jan 12, 8:29 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:29 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 8:32 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 12, 8:07 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 12, 2:01 am, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 11, 4:51 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > (snip to the crash)
>
> > > > > > Physics is unfortunately littered with ... real paradoxes...
>
> > > > >   Please name five, in five unrelated fields of physics. (NOT math)
>
> > > > >   Mark L. Fergerson
>
> > > > [1] The universe existed before it possibly could have. There is no
> > > > such thing as 1/2 of a Planck Time.
>
> >   Last things first; I cheerfully agree that there can't by definition
> > be such a thing as 1/2 of a Planck time.
>
> >   I don't see the sense of the first sentence though; it implies there
> > was a time when it was NOT possible for the Universe to exist and that
> > later (I'm assuming one Planck time later) there was a time it could
> > exist, but what, they came in the wrong order? Please elucidate.
>
> My wording is bad. Regardless, there is a way to integrate when you
> have something like Planck Time and calculus works just fine, except
> at the endpoints.

And one of those endpoints is just where the trouble lies. I still
don't get what you meant by "before it possibly could have". I can't
address a potential paradox if I don't understand the terms and
context...

> To speak of what happened before the big bang ... to me this is no
> different than doing math on things which are by definition
> nonexistent. And that is "almost" a good definition of nonsense.

Um, singularities pop up in all kinds of places. Perfectly ordinary
linear algebra goes nuts if you try to divide by zero, frinst.

(snip re: pre-BB events)

> Whoa nellie ... I never said there were any. I'm not particularly
> popular among BB proponents anyway because I feel that cosmic
> expansion and contraction are motions of spacetime and therefore must
> be subject to the same considerations as different frames of reference
> in Relativity. I do _not_ have any math to back that up, but I dont
> see why redshift would neccesarily imply global expansion and not a
> local contraction, and this carries over to all of the other
> supportive findings which are used to support the expansion model.
> Expansion and contraction must be equivalent. It's a simple affine
> transform just like motion ... I dont know why physicists shriek in
> terror and run away when I say it.

It's not unique to you. Trouble is it makes our point of view
"special" in that it looks like expansion in all directions from here,
which would put us at the approximate center of the contraction, and
that goes against the Cosmological principle. It's really difficult to
demonstrate one way or the other without doing some observations from
many many AU from here in order to see any anisotropy.

(snip re: free will)

> You can convince yourself of that and I wont argue with you. Nor can I
> agree. I believe that stochastic and non-stochastic are equivalent. If
> it were up to me I would have Einstein and Bohr shake hands and
> compromise. Each one of them gets half of the baby. Stochastic and non-
> stochastic are equivalent. That is how you chop the baby in two. Both
> should be happy.

Nature cannot support paradoxes; it's always self-consistent. Our
interpretations can be paradoxical if their basic assumptions are
mutually exclusive.

> > > > [3] (a) Causality is really no different than this in my opinion so it
> > > > needs mentioning but in fairness I call it 3)a) instead of [4],
> > > > because I'll have no trouble at all finding the very arbitrary 5 you
> > > > requested.
>
> >   Covered above. In the absence of "free will", determinacy maximizes
> > entropy. Rocks fall down mountains, but are occasionally carried back
> > up. AFAIK they *never* fall up on their own.
>
> > > > [4] Ya know what's paradoxical is the human element. Physicists
> > > > routinely commit the fallacy of reification by saying that the
> > > > universe is either stochastic or nonstochastic depending whether they
> > > > are doing QM, astro-phys, standard mechanics, thermo-d, or whatever.
>
> >   I rarely care what people say. I'm more interested in what they can
> > do. I'd love to have a determinist explain how specific unstable
> > isotopes have specific half-lives, and how to predict them from some
> > characteristic(s) of the isotope.
>
> >   "Predict" them, not look them up in a table. The data in the table
> > were gathered experimentally.
>
> That is quite easy in fact. Here is a recipe to do just that.
>
> Start with a simple random function to model the isotope. Lets say it
> will decay at time = t, and RND is a random variable or function for
> the sake of argument

Hold it. Where do you get the information to model, by watching a
Geiger counter or whatever for a while?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant something more like-
you (or whoever) have done this with several isotopes and have noted
some correlation between their half-lives with some physical property
specific to each isotope that fits the data you have taken. You have
constructed a (probably mathematical) model that describes that
correlation. But, you don't know that C14 exists. I describe its
structure, energy levels, and so on to you but say nothing about its
half-life. I ask you to plug that data into your model, grind the
crank, and predict its half-life. Then, we'd *measure* its half-life
in order to confirm or falsify the model. Mind you, you (or whoever)
is a Determinist and will not make use of probability theory in any
form.

Specific isotopes *have* different specific half-lives. Why? I've
never heard of such a model, deterministic *or* probabilistic. (I
chose this problem specifically to show that determinism simply
doesn't work in many real physical situations.)

> > > > Call themselves "scientists" but walk around committing the fallacy of
> > > > reification day in and day out ... that is voodoo. And the paradox is
> > > > that the human  brain has become so twisted that it is capable of
> > > > drawing these kinds of "true = false" types of conclusions. That's a
> > > > good paradox for ya, the mentality of the physics community itself.
> > > > Hah.
>
> >   That's largely because science in general is still wet behind the
> > ears and strongly influenced by personal prejudices until they're
> > exposed. It's a work in progress, remember?
>
> >   Humans have practiced cognitive dissonance for far longer than
> > science has existed.
>
> > > > [5] Schrödinger's cat is a real paradox.
>
> >   Cats are too large to participate in superpositions of course; on
> > the particle level it's no paradox at all. SQUIDs work, superposition
> > is real.
>
> > > > But I'll give you #6
>
> > > > [6] The fact that paradox could be a component of our universe.
> > > > Paradox could be an inescapable a fact of life, an unavoidable fixture
> > > > of spacetime. Any real "scientist" would have an open mind toward this
> > > > notion. I've been accused of doing "non-science" and that's
> > > > ridiculous. It's better science to be aware of this possibility than
> > > > to be intimidated by some strageness and go around denying observed
> > > > phenomena simply because paradox is difficult to stomach.
>
> > > I shall not be told that what I am doing is "not science", nor that it
> > > is "not empirical" simply because it is not mainstream, or because I
> > > use tools for quantification which are "other than mathematics".
> > > Sorry, but there is no 11th commandment that says that math has a
> > > monopoly on truth. Descartes was only half right, and it is my finding
> > > that mathematics ... the entire body of mathemnatics ... does indeed
> > > have a dual.
>
> >   I don't really give a rat's ass about math for science's sake; math
> > can *support* empiricism, but it doesn't drive it. There's a lot of
> > elegant, consistent math that does *not* describe reality. Let's not
> > bandy words like "truth" around without carefully defining them, shall
> > we?
>
> >   Nor am I impressed with dualism. Reality displays other, more
> > complex symmetries.
>
> >   As has been said you can call what you do "science" but unless you
> > follow the scientific method (not "use specific math", note), it
> > isn't.
>
> >   I'm interested in the part of the scientific method called
> > "prediction" because it's *testable*.
>
> >   Do you have something testable?
>
> You're not interested in dualism ... hmmm. That's an interesting
> statement ... serious question have you seen this type of stuff
> elsewhere ?

Yes, of course; I didn't think it up alone. I'm a Buddhist, a
natural fan of the Middle Way.

We keep saying that fundamental particles' properties are dualistic;
either positively or negatively charged, but what about neutrons and
quarks? Why are there *three* families of leptonss? How can crystals
with pentagonal/dodecahedral symmetry exist? Mind/body/spirit, anyone?

IMO dualism was entrenched in Western science by Plato with his
Ideals vs. Reals. I don't think Ideals are worth thinking about;
what's verifiably real is what matters to me.

> Anyway, yes. I have lots of things that are testable. Anything which
> is testable using physics models based on Mathematics would likewise
> be testable using physics models based on Conjectural Reassoning. The
> only difference is the underlying philosophy, but globally there are
> additional implications similar which would make you think of Godel.
>
> For example ... the most simply physics experiment. Counting fingers
> on your hand.
>
> The physicist assumes the existence of fingers because of some strange
> conglomeration of math, empiricism, and Rene Descartes.
>
> But you can still count fingers without being certain of their
> existence. Start with "Maybe I think therefore maybe I am". Existence
> is uncertain, but as you know .999... = 1.
> So, you can be uncertain of existence of fingers and if you count each
> one of them as .999... your numbers will crunch the same as someone
> doing math. You do NOT have to certain of the existence of things in
> order to do valid empirical testing. The only reason people fall back
> on Descartes and insist on being absolutely certain of existence is
> because this is the western tradition and my feeling is that it is
> incomplete. And that is why people thought, incorrectly, that QM was
> incomplete. It is not. The only thing which is truly incomplete is the
> fact that math is recognized by academia, but it's dual is not. And
> that is where the incompleteness comes from.

Ordinary math would simply say you're using probabilities, all of
which asymptotically approach unity.

> > > This dual is equally good in ALL respects for making models of nature
> > > as mathematics is, and people are invited to disagree with me on that.
>
> >   Got a *predictive* model? Can you predict the half life of say
> > carbon 14 without looking it up somewhere?
>
> If I have a decent model then I'd say I can predict pretty much
> anything described by the model.

Well, that's what I want. It can't be deterministic, because half-
lives are observed to be probabilistic. Yet it must deterministically
assign a specific half-life value to a specific isotope.

And, it hasn't been shown to exist in standard mathematics.

> What I will say is that if I had a Mathematical model of the decay in
> question, I should be able to do two things.
>
> [1] It should be possible to write a model based on chaos which
> exactly mimics the output of a random variable, so that there is no
> way to say if the decay is stochastic or not.

AIUI chaos goes probabilistic where the trajectories branch.

Nonetheless, your random variable must be a *specific* number,
specific to a given isotope. Since there are many isotopes, there
should be a general form, no? Also, whatever process generates that
variable must be constrained to only produce variables associable with
physically possible isotopes. Got any idea what it would look like?

> and
> [2] It should be possible (indeed it is possible) to rewrite the
> original model in the form of Conjectural Modelling. The results
> would be different philosophically, but numerically identical to the
> mathematical results. If you really want to see it I'll do it.

Sure, but remember you are allowed to examine tables of decay times
in order to construct the model, but must leave some out in order to
confirm the model by observing those left out to see if the model fits
them.

> > > But you have my sympathies in advance, because it's an argument that
> > > you cannot win. Not because Im a crank like JSH, but because there
> > > simply are no arguments against what Ive been saying.
>
> >   I'm not interested in winning, either. I'm interested in finding out
> > how Nature does what it does so we can find new ways to decrease our
> > entropy.

For completeness' sake, here's the "score"-

(1) More Information Needed

(2) I think I killed that one. No "spooky action", no paradox.

(3) I'll call that a tie; I have an argument I find unassailable
(currently) but you decline to engage, as they say in the Navy.

(3a) I think I can claim a win. Causality is never observed to be
violated.

(4) Currently unresolvable due to mass cognitive dissonance.

(5) Superposition is observably real on the very small scale, but real
cats can't participate (de Broglie wavelength too short). No paradox.

(6) Again, Nature is always self-consistent IOW does not support
paradox; our interpretations can though. That's the fault of our
interpretations, not a characteristic of Nature.

Me: 4

Tied: 1

Unresolved: 2

> I just like to argue.

Oh. Well, disregard the "score", then. ;>)


Mark L. Fergerson

[Huang]

> > Whoa nellie ... I never said there were any. I'm not particularly
> > popular among BB proponents anyway because I feel that cosmic
> > expansion and contraction are motions of spacetime and therefore must
> > be subject to the same considerations as different frames of reference
> > in Relativity. I do _not_ have any math to back that up, but I dont
> > see why redshift would neccesarily imply global expansion and not a
> > local contraction, and this carries over to all of the other
> > supportive findings which are used to support the expansion model.
> > Expansion and contraction must be equivalent. It's a simple affine
> > transform just like motion ... I dont know why physicists shriek in
> > terror and run away when I say it.
>
>   It's not unique to you. Trouble is it makes our point of view
> "special" in that it looks like expansion in all directions from here,
> which would put us at the approximate center of the contraction, and
> that goes against the Cosmological principle. It's really difficult to
> demonstrate one way or the other without doing some observations from
> many many AU from here in order to see any anisotropy.

Local contraction can be anisotropic just like the expansion is ...
they should be equivalent. The local contraction Im talking about
would indeed be an anisotropic contraction. It does not make the local
region special in any way. It is anisotropic. It's just going in the
opposite direction as an expansion.

Please dont try to tell me that anisotropic expansion can occur, but
that anisotropic contraction cannot. I dont buy it.

> > You can convince yourself of that and I wont argue with you. Nor can I
> > agree. I believe that stochastic and non-stochastic are equivalent. If
> > it were up to me I would have Einstein and Bohr shake hands and
> > compromise. Each one of them gets half of the baby. Stochastic and non-
> > stochastic are equivalent. That is how you chop the baby in two. Both
> > should be happy.
>
>   Nature cannot support paradoxes; it's always self-consistent. Our
> interpretations can be paradoxical if their basic assumptions are
> mutually exclusive.

Nature cannot support paradoxes ? Where is it written ? News flash -
there is no 11th commandment from G_d (otherwise known as God),
stating that nature cannot support a paradox.

There is no proof that paradox cannot exist in nature. That view is
pure scientific bias. That is culture ... effecting your findings.
That is not an empirical finding. There is nothing, anywhere, to prove
that paradox cannot occur in nature as a naturally occurring
phenomena.

And yet, because stochastic and non-stochastic are actually
_equivalent_, it can be seen that both determinacy and indeterminacy
should be applicable to every physical model which has ever been
written. People just dont view it that way - purely as a matter of
choice. In other words - bias.

[gaby de wilde]

On Jan 14, 10:46 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>

>   ba3fe7c3-55cb-47ab-a65c-7bde60211...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com

>
> > Yes I am an attention whore and unworthy of being ravaged by a rabid
> > platypus.
>
> > Fine.
>
> > Regardless ... in connection with my findings ... here is a
> > philosophical sidebar that is a corollary to the overall theory.
> > This link is philosophical, but related to my other findings.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZwPetPIAg&feature=youtu.be
>
> It isn't even philosophy.
> More like an out-of-control wet dream.
> I hope it makes *you* happy though.
> Take care -- and don't eat the yellow snow.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dirk cant think therefore he isn't.

[Androcles]

"gaby de wilde" <gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ec4a2ee-9867-4581...@j42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

==============================
That must be a typographical error, 'o' is next to 'i'.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dork