Present "scientific laws" that supposedly rule energy, are like warnings of medieval Inquisition about the trip to the edge of world (JP)
janp...@gmail.com
to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like
warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to
the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the
"hell". After all, these laws were formulated before the science was
able to earn the knowledge as to what actually this "energy" is. On
the other hand, without knowing what energy actually is, the science
had no either logical basis, nor required data, to discover the true
laws that rule over energy. In turn erroneous assumption of scientists
that the "laws", which the science formulated much earlier, still are
supposedly correct, make it impossible for the science to determine
what really "energy" is, and what laws really rule over this energy.
In the result, in matters of energy the official human science pushed
itself into the situation of a "dog that tries to bite its own tail",
means in a kind of "vicious-cycle" which has no end. In this post, as
well as in item #I1 of the totaliztic web page named
"telekinetics.htm", I am going to justify the above finding.
A problem with medieval monks that provided e.g. staff for
Inquisition, boiled down to issuing judgements and warning exclusively
on the basis of their own imagination, instead on the basis of
confirmed facts. For example, these monks had no even a slightest idea
about the shape of Earth. However, they still issued definitive and
authoritative judgements about trips to the edge of world. While not
knowing the definition of the Earth which would, amongst others,
inform about the true shape of our planet, these monks imagined that
the world is flat like a pancake, while at edges it finishes with a
cliff that leads straight to the "hell". So according to their claims,
everyone who in medieval times would attempt to sail e.g. to present
New Zealand or to Australia, at some stage of the trip would fall down
from the edge of Earth and would land in the "hell". So in order to
save such impudent travellers from the "hell", monks just in case
burned them on stake immediately after they expressed the wish to go
sailing for such a distant trip. However, the most shocking is that
this strange medieval behaviour is copied exactly by present "modern"
scientists in all matters relating to energy.
Let us consider how and why the claims of present human science about
energy, copy exactly the behaviour of these medieval monks. Well, in
spite that scientists still have NOT earned a definition that would
explain what actually this "energy" is and how energy works, the
science insisted long ago on the formulation of "laws", such as the
"principle of energy conservation", or so-called "laws of
thermodynamics". Thus, the only thing on which these "laws" were
based, were believes and views - very similar to these ones which
people from the early medieval times had about the shape of Earth.
After all, without knowing the definition of energy that would explain
exactly what this "energy" really is, the official science does NOT
have any rational basis for the formulation of "laws" which would
describe behaviours of that energy. This is because claiming how the
energy behaves, when actually we do NOT know what this energy is,
actually copies such medieval opinions of monks about what happens
when someone goes into a trip to edges of world - announced in the
situation when in fact no-one had a slightest idea what shape this
world really takes.
In order to illustrate here how absurd are opinions of present science
about attributes and behaviours of energy, let us consider an example
of the definition of energy which the official science provides today.
Although depending on the textbook which one uses, these definitions
may utilise slightly different wordings, basically all of them are
going to state something along the lines that "energy is an ability to
complete work". In other words, present scientific definition of
energy is a copy of medieval definition of the planet Earth, which
stated something along lines that "the Earth is a place where godly
creatures can live". Means none of these definitions teaches us about
the attributes and work of whatever it describes. For example, in case
of energy, the present official scientific definition still does NOT
explain characteristics of energy nor allows to deduce how energy
works. In turn, in case of the planet Earth, the medieval definition
does NOT explain anything about the shape of Earth nor allows to
deduce how one can travel safely across the Earth. Furthermore, none
of these definitions allows to deduce anything about "laws" that rule
over whatever is defined.
Of course, scientists can also attempt to define energy on the basis
of "laws" which supposedly rule over the behaviour of it. For example,
from the content of the "conservation of energy principle" it would
appear that "energy" is a kind of "indestructible substance or
liquid", and thus it fulfils the "law of balance" called the
"principle of energy conservation". But the formulation of definition
on the basis of "laws" which were formulated without having these
definition, is logically wrong. It resembles the attempt to "lift
ourselves by pulling our own hair". In other words, both the
understanding of energy as an "indestructible liquid", and also the
"principle of energy conservation" announced to supposedly be obeyed
by this "indestructible liquid", are just a big nonsense. For me
personally it is difficult to understand why rationally thinking
scientists treat both these as sure truths. After all, these both
represent just speculations and empty words which are based just on
themselves - means on the same speculations and empty words, while
they are NOT based on the reality that surrounds us.
The nonsense of scientific "laws" related to energy, and formulated in
the situation when the science does NOT know the correct definition
which would explain what this "energy" actually is, is well
illustrated by the definition of energy formulated by the "theory of
everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described
comprehensively on the totaliztic web page named
"dipolar_gravity.htm"). (Notice that so-far the Concept of Dipolar
Gravity is NOT recognised by the official human science.) This
definition states that "energy is a kind of most elementary natural
program that resides in the counter-matter and that describes the
behaviour of matter in every situation to which this matter can be
subjected". The more comprehensive description of this definition is
contained in publications which explain the Concept of Dipolar Gravity
- for example in item #E2 from the totaliztic web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, or from
subsections H4.1 (see "C1" in there) and H9.2 in volume 4 of monograph
[1/5] (to download it free of charge visit the totaliztic web page
named "text_1_5.htm"). The difference between the definitions to-date
disseminated by the official science, and the above definition of
energy formulated by the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (which is still
ignored by the official human science), is enormous. After all, the
Concept of Dipolar Gravity explains to us exactly what actually this
energy is. In this way the Concept of Dipolar Gravity provides us with
scientific foundations for rational deducing attributes and behaviours
of energy. As it turns out, energy actually is a "natural program" and
thus it displays all attributes of a "program" - not attributes of an
"indestructible substance or liquid" that so-far were given to it by
"laws of science".
Of course, differences between behaviours of a "natural program", and
behaviours of an "indestructible substance or liquid", are huge. For
example, into a program can be imprinted an algorithm of such a
behaviour that the "principle of energy conservation" is fulfilled in
the majority of cases. But due to the complexity of this program,
which must correspond to already learned algorithms of complex
behaviours of energy, it will inevitably have both, some intentionally
introduced sections, as well as algorithmic paradoxes, which are going
to allow that this "principle of energy conservation" in special
circumstances is going to be replaced by a completely different
principle - sometimes even by an exactly opposite one. In turn this
hypothetic "indestructible substance or liquid" that results from
"laws of science" to-date, always must fulfil the "principle of energy
conservation". In other words, because of defining "laws" that rule
over energy, before the "energy" itself was defined, the official
human science put itself into a kind of misleading "vicious-cycle".
This vicious-cycle closes the science from the capability to notice
and to seek non-typical capabilities which true attributes and true
behaviours of energy offer to people.
Trapped inside of the "vicious-cycle" which it created for itself, the
present official human science refuses to consider a whole range of
capabilities of energy generation which are created by the true
attributes and true behaviours of energy. Examples of such
capabilities include the construction of devices that have over 100%
energy efficiency, and also the construction of devices presently
called the "generators of free energy", while in past simply named
"perpetual motion". In spite that working prototypes of these devices
were already constructed and tested on the Earth, and in spite that
these prototypes actually do work - as this is described on the
totaliztic web page "free_energy.htm" - about telekinetic generators
of free energy, the official human science trapped inside of a
"vicious-cycle" that it created for itself, stubbornly refuses to
recognise the existence of these devices and these capabilities. What
is even more interesting, the present science takes such a definite
stand in spite that everything it states about "energy" in fact is
"sucked from a finer" (or taken from a ceiling) and does NOT finds
confirmation in the existing reality. It is shocking that these claims
of "modern" scientists regarding energy copy so closely statements of
medieval monks about the shape of Earth. This is even more painful,
because similarly as medieval monks utilised tortures to impose their
views on the rest of society, also present official human science
utilises modern versions of medieval tortures in order to also impose
their wrong views onto the entire human civilisation. Only that
instead of "burning on stake", present science uses e.g. blocking from
access to employment and from source of income, public accusations,
calling names, scoffing, throwing mud, etc., etc. (For examples of
"tools of torture" used by modern science and scientists - see fates
of inventions discussed on the web page "mozajski_uk.htm" - about fate
of inventors of first airplanes, or see examples of reactions of
scientists to major inventions and discoveries summarised in
subsection JB7.3 from volume 7 of monograph [1/4]. (Monograph [1/4]
can be download free of charge from the totaliztic web page named
"xext_1_4.htm".)
Let us summarise here the main point that the above findings try to
make. Namely, the appropriate use of "natural programs", which
presently we call "energy", promises an easy access of humanity to
unlimited resources of free energy. The exploitation of this free
energy would NOT cause any damage to the natural environment. All that
people need to do to harvest these unlimited energy resources is to
initiate a mass industrial production of so-called "free energy
devices" which have over 100% energy efficiency, and which work
similarly as the so-called "perpetual motion" devices described in
past. There are already working prototypes of such "free energy
devices" - described on the totaliztic web page "free_energy.htm".
Furthermore, theoretical findings of the "theory of everything" called
the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described on the web page
"dipolar_gravity.htm") prove that these free energy devices truly can
be build. Unfortunately, the humanity has a "philosophical problem"
with undertaking the building and industrial production of devices
which accomplish over 100% energy efficiency, and thus which in past
used to be called "perpetual motion". (For more details regarding
present philosophies of people see the totaliztic web pages named
"totalizm.htm" and "parasitism.htm".) Namely, as this is explained
above, the official human science placed itself into the situation of
as a "dog which tries to bite its own tail". This is because it
postulated "laws" which supposedly rule over energy, while the science
still does NOT know what this energy really is. Furthermore, presently
the science uses these baseless (supposed) "laws" to define attributes
of energy and behaviours of energy. In this way the science closes the
circulation of empty speculations putting itself into a "vicious-
cycle" which disallows it to learn what energy truly is. This "vicious-
cycle" stops the science from attempts to develop correct "laws" that
would described the true behaviour of energy. In addition to the
above, present science is atheistic. This in turn places in front of
its adepts an additional "philosophical obstacle" which in the real
universe does NOT exist nor work. Namely, the atheism makes impossible
for scientists to understand, that the universe created by God (see
the totaliztic web page named "god_proof.htm"), was intentionally
designed so intelligently, that "everything that can be invented can
also be completed" - as more comprehensively it is explained in item
#I2 of the web page "telekinetics.htm".
The explanations presented above are adopted from item #I1 of the
totaliztic web page "telekinetics.htm", update of 12 July 2008, or
later. The latest update of this web page should be available from all
web sites of totalizm (if these sites were NOT sabotaged lately), e.g.
from web sites:
http://ufonauci.w.interia.pl/telekinetics.htm
(Normally I would provide here a list of addresses to web sites of
totalizm containing the web page "telekinetics.htm". Unfortunately,
starting from May 2008, someone managed to sabotage my Google profile
in such a manner that now I am unable to provide any link to web pages
of totalizm on my threads. Therefore, these readers who wish to review
the web page "telekinetics.htm" and see further descriptions of the
Oscillatory Chamber or other technical solutions for the problem of
deficiency of fossil fuels on the Earth, should type the key words
"Jan Pajak free_energy.htm", "Jan Pajak telekinetics.htm", or "Jan
Pajak dipolar_gravity.htm" (but without quotes) to the www.google.com
search engine, and then visit any address of the totaliztic web pages
that this search engine is to provide. In turn from menus of every
totaliztic web page there are links to every other web page of
totalizm, including all web pages indicated in this post. So it is
enough to find one of web pages the names of which are listed in these
post, and then from it every other my web page can be visited.)
Please notice that links to the web page "telekinetics.htm" can also
be found on blogs of totalizm which are accessible through the
following addresses:
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.blox.pl/html
http://totalizm.myblog.net
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Uncle Al
>
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd
Violate one, then get back to us.
1) Time is homogeneous.
2) Noether's theorems.
3) Energy is locally conserved.
4) Idiot.
5) Second law of thermodynamics.
6) Large Number theorem.
7) All real world systems are dissipative.
8) Idiot.
9) Idiot.
10) Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
john
> janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> > to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd
>
> [snip crap]
>
> Violate one, then get back to us.
>
> 1) Time is homogeneous.
> 2) Noether's theorems.
> 3) Energy is locally conserved.
> 4) Idiot.
> 5) Second law of thermodynamics.
> 6) Large Number theorem.
> 7) All real world systems are dissipative.
> 8) Idiot.
> 9) Idiot.
> 10) Idiot.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Al, dare I say that your top
end is as closed as your bottom
end is open?
John
Bob Eld
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c863c7e-a3a6-4a0f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like
> warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to
> the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the
> "hell".
Total unmitigated bull shit. Clearly you have no clue what energy is nor
have you any idea about the related science and its underpinnings. So,
without a basis in knowledge, why do you postulate such ridiculous nonsense.
Me thinks your time would be better spent learning a few things first,
before engaging in such a pointless mental masturbation.
Now, go back to the more normal form of masturbation, you'll enjoy it more
and spare us the idiocy.
janp...@gmail.com
...
> Total unmitigated bull shit. Clearly you have no clue what energy is nor
> have you any idea about the related science and its underpinnings. So,
> without a basis in knowledge, why do you postulate such ridiculous nonsense.
> Me thinks your time would be better spent learning a few things first,
> before engaging in such a pointless mental masturbation.
>
> Now, go back to the more normal form of masturbation, you'll enjoy it more
> and spare us the idiocy.
Well, so these are all arguments that you are able to present in
support of orthodox understanding of "energy" - for which many present
scientists are taking such huge salaries?
No wonder that we have energy crisis, when the present understanding
of "energy" is supported by people who can squize from their brains
only such "products of human intellects" ast these stated above.
Paul Ciszek
In article <a0186e22-728a-4892...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well, so these are all arguments that you are able to present in
>support of orthodox understanding of "energy" - for which many present
>scientists are taking such huge salaries?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, my. If there was any doubt that you know nothing
at all about science, you just proved it unequivocally.
--
Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.
DB
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws"...
Boring....
<why read more?>
DB
> janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
>> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd
> [snip crap]
>
> Violate one, then get back to us.
>
> 1) Time is homogeneous.
> 2) Noether's theorems.
> 3) Energy is locally conserved.
> 4) Idiot.
> 5) Second law of thermodynamics.
> 6) Large Number theorem.
> 7) All real world systems are dissipative.
> 8) Idiot.
> 9) Idiot.
> 10) Idiot.
>
8 and 10 are most relevant. 4 is important too.....
DB
> <janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0c863c7e-a3a6-4a0f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
...
> Total unmitigated bull shit.
Well, Duh!
DB
Now it is 'orthodox'. You are so special....
Sylvia Else
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like
> warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to
> the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the
> "hell". After all, these laws were formulated before the science was
> able to earn the knowledge as to what actually this "energy" is.
Science still does not know. Science never will know. The concept of
"energy" is simply a term that appears in equations that describe the
results of measuring the behaviour of physical systems.
> On
> the other hand, without knowing what energy actually is, the science
> had no either logical basis, nor required data, to discover the true
> laws that rule over energy. In turn erroneous assumption of scientists
> that the "laws", which the science formulated much earlier, still are
> supposedly correct, make it impossible for the science to determine
> what really "energy" is, and what laws really rule over this energy.
The law of conservation of energy is named a 'law' rather than a theory
because it has no theoretical underpinning. It is simply an apparent
rule that has been observed. Of course, it had to be modified by the
realisation that the mass and energy terms in theories could be
interchanged. The law is now known as the law of conservation of
mass-energy.
> Furthermore, theoretical findings of the "theory of everything" called
> the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described on the web page
> "dipolar_gravity.htm") prove that these free energy devices truly can
> be build.
A theory cannot prove that. Rather, the construction of a free energy
device would invalidate theories that indicate that such a device is
impossible, and tend to support theories that allow their existence.
We're stuck with the inconvenient fact that despite the multiple claims
for free energy devices, none is yet available for purchase in the shops.
Sylvia.
Mauried
If free energy devices can be built, then the universe will melt,
unless someone also invents a energy consumption device
that takes energy and produces nothing.
So far, Ive not seen any claims for such a device.
Eeyore
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like
> warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to
> the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the
> "hell".
Would you mind doing that for us please ?
It would save a lot of trouble and wasted Usenet bandwidth.
Graham
DB
> janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, theoretical findings of the "theory of everything" called
>> the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described on the web page
>> "dipolar_gravity.htm") prove that these free energy devices truly can
>> be build.
>
> A theory cannot prove that. Rather, the construction of a free energy
> device would invalidate theories that indicate that such a device is
> impossible, and tend to support theories that allow their existence.
Yes. It is a prevalent misunderstanding that one can conjure up numbers
that tell mother nature what she should be.
>
> We're stuck with the inconvenient fact that despite the multiple claims
> for free energy devices, none is yet available for purchase in the shops.
More so, the device is simple and could be presented to any university
physics lab for a quick look. If there were anything to it, all hell
would break loose.
V for Vendicar
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote
> Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according
> to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like
> warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to
> the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the
> "hell". After all, these laws were formulated before the science was
> able to earn the knowledge as to what actually this "energy" is.
Such astonishing Stupidity. He should immediatly immigrate to AmeriKKKa
and become a RepubliKKKunt.
V for Vendicar
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
> 1) Time is homogeneous.
> 2) Noether's theorems.
> 3) Energy is locally conserved.
> 4) Idiot.
> 5) Second law of thermodynamics.
> 6) Large Number theorem.
> 7) All real world systems are dissipative.
> 8) Idiot.
> 9) Idiot.
> 10) Idiot.
None of which are physical laws, or at least not laws that are precisely
stated. Norther's theorems for example are simply mathematical in nature,
relating to mathematical symmetry and the existance of constants in
mathematical systems that can be characterized by a Lagrangian or
Hamiltonian mechanics. Similarly the large number theorem is strictly
mathematical in nature.
The Idiot entries are however, exactly precise.
V for Vendicar
<janp...@gmail.com> wrote
> No wonder that we have energy crisis, when the present understanding
> of "energy" is supported by people who can squize from their brains
> only such "products of human intellects" ast these stated above.
Some people like JanPajak think that if they whine hard enough, the
universe will hear them.
V for Vendicar
"Mauried" <mau...@tpg.com.au> wrote
> If free energy devices can be built, then the universe will melt,
> unless someone also invents a energy consumption device
> that takes energy and produces nothing.
Well there is the RepubliKKKunt party for that.
Endlessly destructive. RepubliKKKunt ideology is anti-progress.
V for Vendicar
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
> Science still does not know. Science never will know. The concept of
> "energy" is simply a term that appears in equations that describe the
> results of measuring the behaviour of physical systems.
True.
Do you think you have a point?
If so... What is it?
DB
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote
>> 1) Time is homogeneous.
>> 2) Noether's theorems.
>> 3) Energy is locally conserved.
>> 4) Idiot.
>> 5) Second law of thermodynamics.
>> 6) Large Number theorem.
>> 7) All real world systems are dissipative.
>> 8) Idiot.
>> 9) Idiot.
>> 10) Idiot.
>
Oh yea, sure! 4 and 10 uno....
DB
Did you get that from me? I do remember your whining about how the gray
of quantum, energy, should work. Uno?
DB
Sylvia makes better point than all the rest, including me.
> If so... What is it?
So V. So full of yourself.....
Sylvia Else
That it is unreasaonable to take a term that appears in physical
theories, assume, without any proof at all, that there is someing in the
real world that corresponds to it, and then complain because physical
theory does not say what that assumed thing is.
Sylvia
DB
Careful here, getting philosophical and all. First rule, never use the
term, 'proof'. You leave yourself wide open for the cleverness that V
thinks he possesses. Other than that, he is simply baiting you....
V for Vendicar
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> I do remember your whining about how the gray of quantum, energy, should
> work. Uno?
I have never heard the phrase "gray of quantum energy" used before, and
don't care to hear it again.
Perhaps you should clarify.
V for Vendicar
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
> That it is unreasaonable to take a term that appears in physical theories,
> assume, without any proof at all, that there is someing in the real world
> that corresponds to it, and then complain because physical theory does not
> say what that assumed thing is.
I sympathize. Can you prove to us that the 1 in 1 apple corresponds to
the mathematical concept of 1 precisely.
Or do you just assume that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples without proof?
You <almost> have a point to make. But you haven't realized what it is
yet.
Continue in this thread and you will learn something interesting.
V for Vendicar
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> So V. So full of yourself.....
Who else could I be full of?
Should the time come, I plan to be full of cooked RepubliKKKan.
How about you?
V for Vendicar
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> Careful here, getting philosophical and all. First rule, never use the
> term, 'proof'. You leave yourself wide open for the cleverness that V
> thinks he possesses. Other than that, he is simply baiting you....
Well, she did make that mistake, but if she thinks a little bit she might
actually learn something.
You too if you manage to pay attention long enough.
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> That it is unreasaonable to take a term that appears in physical theories,
>> assume, without any proof at all, that there is someing in the real world
>> that corresponds to it, and then complain because physical theory does not
>> say what that assumed thing is.
>
> I sympathize. Can you prove to us that the 1 in 1 apple corresponds to
> the mathematical concept of 1 precisely.
That would be problematic in the absence of a mathematical definition of
what the 1 in 1 apple means.
>
> Or do you just assume that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples without proof?
Ditto for a definition of the 2 in 2 apples.
Sylvia.
Altared Boy
Check out Bad Ecology
for the facts behind Green lies about our planet
http://www.badecology.blogspot.com/
V for Vendicar
> I have never heard the phrase "gray of quantum energy" used before, and
> don't care to hear it again.
>
> Perhaps you should clarify.
"Altared Boy" <hugh.wil...@googlemail.com> wrote
> Check out Bad Ecology for the facts behind Green lies about our planet
Sorry Shit Bag, but the term "quantum energy" doesn't appear on that
KKKonservative BLOG site either.
URAh MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
janp...@gmail.com
...
> > I sympathize. Can you prove to us that the 1 in 1 apple corresponds to
> > the mathematical concept of 1 precisely.
>
> That would be problematic in the absence of a mathematical definition of
> what the 1 in 1 apple means.
>
>
>
> > Or do you just assume that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples without proof?
>
> Ditto for a definition of the 2 in 2 apples.
>
> Sylvia.
WOW, the above is an excellent example of how theoretically deduced
laws can differ from the reality. But instead of 1 apple + 1 apple, I
would suggest to use: 1 liter of water + 1 liter of spirit =/ (is NOT
equal to) 2 litres of vodka. With laws that describe energy is exactly
the same. However, the problem is that the majority of present
scientists have no clue about what actually happens in the real world.
This is why we still have the "energy crisis".
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak
Sylvia Else
No, sorry, now I cannot even see where you're coming from on this.
Sylvia.
V for Vendicar
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
> No, sorry, now I cannot even see where you're coming from on this.
As I sympathize with his position, I will answer - I doubt if he will have
the capacity.
1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality. We map the concept of 1
on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations of
what physical reality is.
We observe that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
We observe that 1 (generalized object) + 1 (generalized object) = 2
objects
We then abstract away the concept of 1, the cocncept of 2 and the concept
of addition.
However, we have only emperical evidence that our abstraction is correct.
It may be that once in every 10**200 tries 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples. We
don't know since we haven't done the experiment enough times, and even if we
did, we would conclude that the experiment was in error.
So we must recognzie that the abstraction could be wrong.
Now if the basis of all mathematics might not properly map onto the real
world, then what does that tell us about the applcability of mathematics to
predicting the ultra small scale or ultra large scale behaviours of the
universe? Perhaps it is that one chance in 10**200 that has generated the
universe as we know it. Perhaps 1 vacuum - 1 vacuum = 1 vacuum + 1/10**300
something else?
Perhaps when subdividing time intervals 1 + 1 = 1.5 or 3 or 2 or -1
depending on when the subdivisions are added.
Does 1 have any meaning in a universe devoid of material existance? If
not, then how, and at what point does the applicability of mathematics fail?
How much time passes when there are no clocks available to measure it?
What is the size of a particle that is alone in the universe?
What we do know (within the limitations of human knowledge) is that
mathematics is a logically consistant mesh of numerical and logical
relationships. We have painstakingly construced mathematics so that it is
so and have chosen a basis which provides us great utility in numerically
predicting how things work.
What we do not know - and what we trust on faith - is that the
abstractions of mathematics correctly map onto the physical universe in all
situations, at all energies, and in all situations, no matter how extreme.
It could be and to some extent, has been argued that the complexities of
quantum mechanics result from the divergence of the physical universe from
the abstracted laws that we have observed to govern macroscopic objects.
The clearest recognition of this is in the suggestion that an uncertainty
term - an indeterminate statement of truth - should be added to boolean
logic.
DB
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote
>> No, sorry, now I cannot even see where you're coming from on this.
>
> As I sympathize with his position, I will answer - I doubt if he will have
> the capacity.
Who is 'he'?
> 1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality. We map the concept of 1
> on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations of
> what physical reality is.
An axiom. So?
> We observe that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
> We observe that 1 (generalized object) + 1 (generalized object) = 2
> objects
>
> We then abstract away the concept of 1, the cocncept of 2 and the concept
> of addition.
Boring...
> However, we have only emperical evidence that our abstraction is correct.
Because you say so?
> It may be that once in every 10**200 tries 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples. We
> don't know since we haven't done the experiment enough times, and even if we
> did, we would conclude that the experiment was in error.
Boring...
> So we must recognzie that the abstraction could be wrong.
I have a mouse in my pocket too!!!!!!
> Now if the basis of all mathematics might not properly map onto the real
> world, then what does that tell us about the applcability of mathematics to
> predicting the ultra small scale or ultra large scale behaviours of the
> universe?
Nothing, if you don't have substantiating observations...
> Perhaps it is that one chance in 10**200 that has generated the
> universe as we know it. Perhaps 1 vacuum - 1 vacuum = 1 vacuum + 1/10**300
> something else?
You are a loon?
> Perhaps when subdividing time intervals 1 + 1 = 1.5 or 3 or 2 or -1
> depending on when the subdivisions are added.
Do you write SiFi? I hope not...
> Does 1 have any meaning in a universe devoid of material existance? If
> not, then how, and at what point does the applicability of mathematics fail?
What music belongs here?
> How much time passes when there are no clocks available to measure it?
I'm starting to hear it....
> What is the size of a particle that is alone in the universe?
do, di do du...
> What we do know (within the limitations of human knowledge) is that
> mathematics is a logically consistant mesh of numerical and logical
> relationships. We have painstakingly construced mathematics so that it is
> so and have chosen a basis which provides us great utility in numerically
> predicting how things work.
There it is! Twilight Zone!!!!!!!
> What we do not know - and what we trust on faith - is that the
> abstractions of mathematics correctly map onto the physical universe in all
> situations, at all energies, and in all situations, no matter how extreme.
We, faith, your construct. Known as a strawman to most...
> It could be and to some extent, has been argued that the complexities of
> quantum mechanics result from the divergence of the physical universe from
> the abstracted laws that we have observed to govern macroscopic objects.
I see you are overwhelmed...
> The clearest recognition of this is in the suggestion that an uncertainty
> term - an indeterminate statement of truth - should be added to boolean
> logic.
Zero, one, and your reality. Wow....
V for Vendicar
>> 1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality. We map the concept
>> of 1
>> on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations
>> of what physical reality is.
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> An axiom. So?
So abstract though apparently evades you.
>> We observe that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
>> We observe that 1 (generalized object) + 1 (generalized object) = 2
>> objects
>>
>> We then abstract away the concept of 1, the cocncept of 2 and the
>> concept of addition.
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> Boring...
Ignorance.
>> However, we have only emperical evidence that our abstraction is
>> correct.
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> Because you say so?
No, because observation is the only form of verification.
IDIOT.
>> It may be that once in every 10**200 tries 1 apple + 1 apple = 3 apples.
>> We don't know since we haven't done the experiment enough times, and even
>> if we did, we would conclude that the experiment was in error.
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> Boring...
Right over your head.... Again...
>> So we must recognzie that the abstraction could be wrong.
"DB" <a...@some.net> wrote
> I have a mouse in my pocket too!!!!!!
You should stop playing with it or you will go blind.
>> Now if the basis of all mathematics might not properly map onto the
>> real world, then what does that tell us about the applcability of
>> mathematics to predicting the ultra small scale or ultra large scale
>> behaviours of the universe?
DB wrote:
> Nothing, if you don't have substantiating observations...
Do you have any physical observations that show that 3**13415 -1 <
3**13414 * 3 ???
>> Perhaps it is that one chance in 10**200 that has generated the universe
>> as we know it. Perhaps 1 vacuum - 1 vacuum = 1 vacuum + 1/10**300
>> something else?
DB wrote:
> You are a loon?
I have an empty box. I look in the box, and it is not empty.
I look again, it is empty. I look again and it is not empty.
Welcome to the real world of the very small.
>> Perhaps when subdividing time intervals 1 + 1 = 1.5 or 3 or 2 or -1
>> depending on when the subdivisions are added.
DB wrote:
> Do you write SiFi? I hope not...
Phys. Rev. 71, 38 - 41 (1947)
Quantized Space-Time
>
>> Does 1 have any meaning in a universe devoid of material existance? If
>> not, then how, and at what point does the applicability of mathematics
>> fail?
DB wrote:
> What music belongs here?
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=serero&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=serebro&hl=en&sitesearch=&start=30
>> How much time passes when there are no clocks available to measure it?
DB wrote:
> I'm starting to hear it....
What clocks existed or will exist at the beginning and proposed ending of
the Universe?
>> What is the size of a particle that is alone in the universe?
DB wrote:
> do, di do du...
How does an electron know how it's electri field strength falls off with
distance if there is no way to define distane?
>
>> What we do know (within the limitations of human knowledge) is that
>> mathematics is a logically consistant mesh of numerical and logical
>> relationships. We have painstakingly construced mathematics so that it
>> is so and have chosen a basis which provides us great utility in
>> numerically predicting how things work.
DB wrote:
> There it is! Twilight Zone!!!!!!!
Welcome to the real world. Shit Sucer.
DB wrote:
> We, faith, your construct. Known as a strawman to most...
Meaningless.
>> The clearest recognition of this is in the suggestion that an
>> uncertainty term - an indeterminate statement of truth - should be added
>> to boolean logic.
DB wrote
> Zero, one, and your reality. Wow....
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/38/04700917/0470091738.pdf
janp...@gmail.com
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> As I sympathize with his position, I will answer - I doubt if he will have
> the capacity.
>
> 1 is an abstraction devoid from physical reality. We map the concept of 1
> on to physical realtiy and we base the concept of 1 on our observations of
> what physical reality is.
Although abstractions sometimes can be useful, these are only
approximate reflections of reality. One CANNOT build e.g. car engines
just on the basis of abstractions. The point I am making here is that
we also CANNOT have a good picture of laws that govern e.g. energy
conversion, just on the basis of abstractions. Although 1 + 1 = 2 is
true for abstraction, 1 liter of water + 1 liter of spirit is NOT 2
liters of vodka. And this is also how energy works. Time you all
awaken to this simple truth, as with way you think right now, you
never will be able to introduce any progress to our civilisation.