[ Long ] A Philosophy of Science v. Pseudo-Science

Page 9 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,137

21 Mar 2015, 3:43 pm

eric76 wrote:
aghogday wrote:
I completed this project of close to 4,000 words, in creativity and deeper thinking than science can imagine, as of course science has no imagination, other that the programs of science that is administered by limited minds, in a matter of course, of a few hours, FROM BEGINNING TO END.


I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, but I fail to understand how anything I've seen you post on this site has anything at all to do with science.


LIKE I SAID, I ALREADY mastered science in 'grade' school, and now I focus on the more infinite realm of the tapestry of the ART than can be human being NOT limited by mechanical cognition mind.

If I was really interested in science, I would have continued my career as scientist, way back in the day, in the world of University life, where I was employed, as a research associate in science.

I quickly learned that science IS too restrictive for my naturally creative mind.

And by that point, I had almost lost my creative mind at the top of the class all through high school, and three degrees of college in mechanical cognition associated studies.

I find science, as a necessary tool, for human creature comforts but I find it extremely boring and would rather exercise true magic in what can be a human mind and body in balance, more fully expanded, in all the other intelligences that can be sought, found, employed, developed, utilized and practiced to MAKE REAL HUMAN FLESH AND BLOOD MIRACLES COME TRUE, as I have soundly evidenced on this site that no one will even touch with a word, except for a very limited disbelief of one word, psychobabble.

I find that interestingly amusing and ironic.

And it's just as well, as I am not here to speak to

limited closed minded posters.

The audience here is much greater than those who care to post here.

Most people have real lives away from this place, and simply only have time to read.

I am discussing philosophy here that proves without a doubt

that science is a pseudo tool AT MOST

to expand human intelligence.

That's a 'little' deeper than what most folks are exposed to in life, here,

but never the less, I am here to just do it,

And I just did it, and now I am going to dance with real flesh and blood human beings.

So please do carry on with discussions of limited science, while I just live an amazing and fruitful

FLESH AND BLOOD LIFE driven by human physical intelligence regulating emotions, sensory integration, cognitive executive functioning, and etc., etc., etc, as FULLY
DISCUSSED HERE, ALREADY,
IN THIS PARTICULAR thread..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Mar 2015, 4:07 pm

It's time to see whether or not the "foe" filters can really filter out posts from specific people.

For what it's worth, I think the term "foe" is not necessarily a descriptive name for the feature. Just calling it a filter might be better.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

21 Mar 2015, 4:16 pm

eric76 wrote:
It's time to see whether or not the "foe" filters can really filter out posts from specific people.

They can't. They'll just stop them appearing in the "topic review" below the box where you compose your posts.

Can we try to avoid provoking aghogday?



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Mar 2015, 4:18 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
It's time to see whether or not the "foe" filters can really filter out posts from specific people.

They can't. They'll just stop them appearing in the "topic review" below the box where you compose your posts.


That's disappointing.

Quote:
Can we try to avoid provoking aghogday?


Yeah.



Kiprobalhato
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

21 Mar 2015, 4:22 pm

PM's are also marked in red. :?

and/or refrain from using the quote button for an immediate response, since it only "multiplies" the posts and makes the page much longer that it needs to be. not a rule, but it just looks, "cleaner".


_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Mar 2015, 4:26 pm

Unfortunately, I'm colorblind enough that I don't see the red very well. It looks about the same as any other dark color.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Mar 2015, 4:29 pm

Kiprobalhato wrote:
Sometimes when someone posts something, I can't figure out if they were replying to the post immediately prior to theirs or to someone else earlier.

One solution is to cut out all but the specific point to which we are replying. Another that I've seen elsewhere is to just cut out the entire quote but leave the quote marks (like I'm doing here) so that it helps make it a bit more clear.

Edit:

It doesn't look like an empty quote helps much here.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,137

21 Mar 2015, 4:38 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
It's time to see whether or not the "foe" filters can really filter out posts from specific people.

They can't. They'll just stop them appearing in the "topic review" below the box where you compose your posts.

Can we try to avoid provoking aghogday?


THANKS.

I did graduate at the top of my class in high school, and college, with three degrees.

When folks here attempt to insult my intelligence, as is already recorded here time and time, again, I 'fight' back with wit.

I read 10 to 15 times faster than the average human being, per my form of Hyperlexic Autism, and type up to around 130 words per minute, if adequately focused, as a life long pianist, per that type of specific physical skill.

IN other words, this is child's play for me requiring little expenditure of time or effort.

Honestly, it's much easier for the folks who attempt to intellectually bully me here, to avoid that, as I am both a big boy in physical stature, and standard IQ measure, always at the top of my class then and now.

I was just a wimp THEN, WITH LIMITED very high standard type I.Q. INTELLIGENCE, and no longer have that basic human problem in real life, as I am actually technically normally viewed in real life now, as an alpha male, which does provide empirical benefits that I have already provided here, ad-nauseam, in empirical evidence, per attracting hundreds of gorgeous twenty-something year old women, and THAT TYPE OF HUMAN INTELLIGENCE IS well worth attaining for human BASIC physical success, FOR OBVIOUS HUMAN REASONS.

I just have more to offer than most people can handle.

Treat me with respect, and the answers will be much shorter.

So again, thank you, with a voice of reason here, instead of the lowest level of critical thinking that is insulting someone else's intelligence, particularly when one cannot even fly that high to begin with..:)

I AM ENCOURAGED by the type of intelligence you offer here, friend, Walrus.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

21 Mar 2015, 4:50 pm

Thank you for your kind words aghogday.

ag, I get that you love finding creative ways to express yourself, particularly after overcoming what you have, but it does make it quite difficult for other people to have conversations when you make really long, flowery posts. Do you see that?

If you want to effectively communicate your vision, you're going to need to change your posting style.

If you view your posts as perfect works of art that should not be compromised, or else think you can't communicate more effectively than the way you are, then that's fine... but could you maybe consider the wishes of other people before you make one of those posts in an active discussion? As it is, you completely dominate conversations. Your hyper-expression makes it harder for the rest of us to express ourselves!

Again, it's great that you're a dance legend with super human strength who all the young people adore, but posting such in every thread about epistemology just makes you seem self centred. I know you're a joyous, loving person, but that's not the impression everyone is getting.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,137

21 Mar 2015, 4:54 pm

eric76 wrote:
Kiprobalhato wrote:
Sometimes when someone posts something, I can't figure out if they were replying to the post immediately prior to theirs or to someone else earlier.

One solution is to cut out all but the specific point to which we are replying. Another that I've seen elsewhere is to just cut out the entire quote but leave the quote marks (like I'm doing here) so that it helps make it a bit more clear.

Edit:

It doesn't look like an empty quote helps much here.


Hmm.. I think she or he, is talking about my long a** posts, AND I respectfully agree.

They are long enough by themselves, when I am more fully motivated to explore topics..:)

And truly when SOME of the minds here, attempt to Intellectually insult me they are just going to get MORE INSTINCT, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES, (ISA'S) FROM ME..:)

But considering, I read 10 to 15 times fast than the average human being, AND HAVE REALLY FAST SCROLLING FINGERS, you can post a novel, and that will NOT be an annoyance to me, personally, at all. :)

IT'S FUN TO BE me as no one ever truly annoys me, as I have the capacity AND FUNCTIONALITY of human mind and body in balance NOT TO BE ANNOYED, PER REGULATION of human emotion, like A FRIGGING real life calm and peaceful YOGI always in the eye of whatever storm is around my environment on or offline..:)

And that my friend is SUPER KOOL LIFE, IN ACTION, MORE THAN WORDS.

But seriously it's time for me to go dancing in real life now, so have a great now..:)

And do continue on without me, if I am not the continuing topic here, instead of whatever it is y'all wanna talk about now, instead of me..;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,137

21 Mar 2015, 5:00 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Thank you for your kind words aghogday.

ag, I get that you love finding creative ways to express yourself, particularly after overcoming what you have, but it does make it quite difficult for other people to have conversations when you make really long, flowery posts. Do you see that?

If you want to effectively communicate your vision, you're going to need to change your posting style.

If you view your posts as perfect works of art that should not be compromised, or else think you can't communicate more effectively than the way you are, then that's fine... but could you maybe consider the wishes of other people before you make one of those posts in an active discussion? As it is, you completely dominate conversations. Your hyper-expression makes it harder for the rest of us to express ourselves!

Again, it's great that you're a dance legend with super human strength who all the young people adore, but posting such in every thread about epistemology just makes you seem self centred. I know you're a joyous, loving person, but that's not the impression everyone is getting.


Hopefully my previous posts will explain that well enough, without going into further excruciating detail here..:)

But never the less..;)

Dude I've been around the block about 'a million times' in real life with real flesh and blood people, close to a
hundred thousand of 'em, in decades of real life, in the real flesh and blood world OF LIFE.

I know what I am doing here, all the time, now.

Autism per cognitive empathy, is an issue long past gone of mine, decades ago, in fact.

And like I said, treat me with respect, and one will not get novels of me back.

It would not be correct for me to just let it go, without a lengthy response,

as truly there are some vulnerable people here

that people who think they are smart

TREAT LIKE CRAP.

AND I DON'T LIKE BULLIES OF THE PHYSICAL OR INTELLECTUAL variety,

AND THEY ARE no challenge to me ever, to defeat, in whatever way I determine
works best..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Mar 2015, 7:28 pm

And now to get somewhat back on topic:

Everyone is familiar with E=mc², but fewer with E²=m²c⁴+p²c² or it's more illuminating version E²=m²+p² that seperates the energy into the portion due to the equivalence between the rest mass and energy and the portion due to momentum of the relativistic particle. It is actually quite easy to show that the two are equivalent.

Let's distinguish between rest mass as m₀. Relativistic mass is usually expressed as m sub r, but I don't know if there is a sub r available here so let's use mₜ as relativistic mass.

Also, use β to denote the ratio between the velocity of the mass and the speed of light. β=v/c. Then the rest mass and the relativistic mass is related by mₜ=m₀/√(1-β²).

Then,

E² = mₜ²c⁴
= (m₀/√(1-β²))² c⁴
= m₀²c⁴/(1-β²)
= m₀²c⁴(1/(1-β²))
= m₀²c⁴((1-β²+β²)/(1-β²))
= m₀²c⁴(1+β²/(1-β²))
= m₀²c⁴ + m₀²c⁴β²/(1-β²)
= m₀²c⁴ + (m₀²/(1-β²))c⁴β²
= m₀²c⁴ + mₜ²c⁴β²
= m₀²c⁴ + mₜ²v²c² (Since β=v/c, βc=v)
= m₀²c⁴ + p²c² (Since p=mₜv)

Or in geometrized units and using m to refer to the rest mass rather than m₀:

E²=m²+p².



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Mar 2015, 3:54 am

eric76 wrote:

Everyone is familiar with E=mc², but fewer with E²=m²c⁴+p²c² or it's more illuminating version E²=m²+p²



More to the point those who feel threatened by E=mc2 (how did you get the 2 in the correct position) do not bother searching for the answer to "how do photons have energy when they have no mass?" instead they rather stupidly assume that they have found a flaw in such an almost universally accepted eqaution, and that all the worlds physicists have either missed what their brilliance can see, or have simply ignored.it in the vain hope that a cattle farmer in Western Australia won't notice it.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

22 Mar 2015, 4:50 am

I have a copy of Einstein's own description of his version of Relativity, and I've read it at least 4 times in the last 40 years hoping each time that I will catch on to how it all works. Each time I was still left uneasy and unconvinced, particularly about General Relativity and the bent, squashed spacetime bit. Since then we have got this computer thingy and I was very pleased indeed to find that there are several much more qualified than me who can identify and describe some flaws and inconsistencies that I really only had a gut feeling about.

However, none of that will be of any interest to those who simply jump on popularised band wagons and sing whatever tune is the flavour of the moment.

Sure, science is pseudoscience if it is inconvenient to the ideology, and pseudoscience is science if it augments the ideology. Observation, reason, experiment and all that are just nuisance things that religious cranks put in the road of the wonderful dream and have nothing to do with it; eh?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Mar 2015, 5:17 am

David you clearly have not bothered to read Eric's post or try to understand the Math. You also clearly are not aware of the many experiments which have verified these equations. Or are these experiments simply frauds perpetrated by rich scientists trying to hide the truth from the likes of your good self.

If you are so certain that you are correct how about you falsifying the above equations? Or showing reasonable evidence that the experiments such as observing the increased life span of Muons, to be fraudulent.

I will accept either your own calculations, verified of course , or the work of scientists with access to the relevant equipment (some how I doubt you have a particle accelerator buried in a paddock under your cattle).


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Mar 2015, 11:26 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
eric76 wrote:

Everyone is familiar with E=mc², but fewer with E²=m²c⁴+p²c² or it's more illuminating version E²=m²+p²



More to the point those who feel threatened by E=mc2 (how did you get the 2 in the correct position) do not bother searching for the answer to "how do photons have energy when they have no mass?" instead they rather stupidly assume that they have found a flaw in such an almost universally accepted eqaution, and that all the worlds physicists have either missed what their brilliance can see, or have simply ignored.it in the vain hope that a cattle farmer in Western Australia won't notice it.


For the special characters, I found a useful page of unicode representations of math and other symbols and cut and paste them into the wrongplanet response page. There are a number of such pages, but many are not as useful. If I find the one I did use again, I'll have to remember to save a link to it.

Sometimes I think that the Internet doesn't help. It used to be that if you wanted to find information on Relativity, you basically found either a course or a book on the subject and studied it. Our sources of information were probably more reliable even if much harder to find. Today all someone has to do is to search for the terms and click on a link and are then stuck with web pages on the subject that may or may not have any credibility at all. Instead of some good source of information, it is often easier to find things where someone who has no expertise on the subject at all but who wishes to be an expert and so posts nonsensical criticisms to prove that they are smarter than all the scientists in the world.

On those occasions where someone did grab onto one item and try to use it to "refute" the entire science it was generally for religious reasons and often either about evolution or the Big Bang (which they often confused with evolution).

When I was started reading about physics and relativity in the 1960s, I always assumed that I wasn't going to understand everything, at least not immediately. Just because I didn't understand something (or maybe because nobody understood something) didn't mean that the theory was wrong. I just meant that my understanding was less than perfect. So I never fell into the trap of reading something where someone with no understanding of the subject grasped onto one minor detail and arbitrarily claimed that it was all wrong.

I remember reading about how the photo has Energy but no rest mass in the 1960s or early 1970s, but to me it was a sign that there was future work to do, not that the science was wrong.

Today, when I see people grasp onto one minor point and try to use it to bring down an entire theory, I figure that they are just about surely a poser who understands little or nothing about science. I want to know what their credentials are -- if they really are an expert on the subject, then they might be onto something, but if they are not experts on the subject, then the odds that their criticisms are almost certainly wrong.