|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 22, 2020 19:04:00 GMT
You can take your thought and speculate about it, but how close or how far two or more thought in real?
An independent thought is as far as possible from the other thoughts. Some may say such a thought is an idea.
Could somebody provide an example of an independent thought? Are there any of such?
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Oct 22, 2020 19:46:53 GMT
Advances in religion and science are based on independent thought. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Newton, Einstein, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 23, 2020 17:22:15 GMT
A false theory of the world would have to be independent of the world.
The very fact of errors in thinking shows that the mind is not
entirely part of a deterministic perfectly logical process.
Classic example is Einstein's 100% false theory of relativity.
Also, any art that is creatively unique would have to consist
of elements not of this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 24, 2020 9:17:52 GMT
A false theory of the world would have to be independent of the world. The very fact of errors in thinking shows that the mind is not entirely part of a deterministic perfectly logical process. Classic example is Einstein's 100% false theory of relativity. Also, any art that is creatively unique would have to consist of elements not of this world. This is very interesting to note that falsehood has spare or extra ontology. Russell and some others thinkers couldn't answer on it. I guess anly McTaggart did, saying that the university went to regress. So far as I don't know (or know it too poorly) Newton and Einstein problem – whether or not relatively universe is possible, so I can't say about dependency or independency. But there's something interesting that I've heard about Alfred Norton Whitehead's theory of relativity that has been done earlier than Einstein and it's been based on philosophical logic only. His system is too complex to dare to explain it by me, however his views (as he has said it) come from Plato's philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 26, 2020 16:02:09 GMT
A false theory of the world would have to be independent of the world. The very fact of errors in thinking shows that the mind is not entirely part of a deterministic perfectly logical process. Classic example is Einstein's 100% false theory of relativity. Also, any art that is creatively unique would have to consist of elements not of this world. This is very interesting to note that falsehood has spare or extra ontology. Russell and some others thinkers couldn't answer on it. I guess anly McTaggart did, saying that the university went to regress. So far as I don't know (or know it too poorly) Newton and Einstein problem – whether or not relatively universe is possible, so I can't say about dependency or independency. But there's something interesting that I've heard about Alfred Norton Whitehead's theory of relativity that has been done earlier than Einstein and it's been based on philosophical logic only. His system is too complex to dare to explain it by me, however his views (as he has said it) come from Plato's philosophy. Any false theory will fit this example. Simply put tho, if nothing moving at light-speed escapes the black-hole then how can gravity escape the black-hole if that gravity moves at light-speed?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 26, 2020 16:12:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 26, 2020 16:22:31 GMT
But he is wrong because he accepts Einstein's perihelion precession data which I have proven to be wrong for 2 quite different reasons. Mercury's perihelion precession for Einstein was only ever calculated in a flat 2D model of Mercury's orbit, but when you take into account that Mercury's orbit is inclined by 7 degrees then the adjustment for 3D is greater than that Einstein claims. In addition individual orbits of Mercury's perhelion vary by amounts greater than that Einstein claimed over his 100 year sample. So selecting a different set of data will easily alter Mercury's orbit to fit or not fit Einstein's claim. Detail: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/mercury.htmThis is all a consequence of my solving 3D gravity for infinite numbers of bodies with this formula: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/n-body-build.htmThus I still claim that I am thus the only person to properly complete Newton's foundational theory on gravity. |
|
