|
Post by jonbain on Feb 19, 2023 15:45:30 GMT
This could mean a psychological state of knowing, but more vitally to this society is what the alleged academic institutions, take to be this foundation.
And if this cannot be agreed upon, then chaos and war degenerate the process further.
Be it a moral or logical answer, or both entwined...
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 20, 2023 22:19:15 GMT
Let's say it has psychology nature, it means then the very nature of it may be transformed outside, i.e be manipulated by someone? Also, let's say it's psychological, therefore it's a soul or something like that. Hence, any interactions with that nature work, because there's a way to interact with a soul indirectly? Or in some way?
The academic foundations, as I can see, is a certain doctrine (maybe separated or badly organised) that is fake? Or it cannot play role of the main basics, because of, let's say, some ideological background of it?
I want here to sign one problem that I can't get (it doesn't deal with exactly this theme directly). Let's say there's an ideological background behind some doctrine, but doesn't mean that this doctrine along with its ideology is just another new ideology? And then again and again... The endless sequence of ideologies. I guess that an ideology is a thought, and since there's no stop to thoughts, there's no stop of ideologies. So, maybe there are no ideologies at all? Shrugged...
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 21, 2023 17:10:32 GMT
Let's say it has psychology nature, it means then the very nature of it may be transformed outside, i.e be manipulated by someone? Also, let's say it's psychological, therefore it's a soul or something like that. Hence, any interactions with that nature work, because there's a way to interact with a soul indirectly? Or in some way? The academic foundations, as I can see, is a certain doctrine (maybe separated or badly organised) that is fake? Or it cannot play role of the main basics, because of, let's say, some ideological background of it? I want here to sign one problem that I can't get (it doesn't deal with exactly this theme directly). Let's say there's an ideological background behind some doctrine, but doesn't mean that this doctrine along with its ideology is just another new ideology? And then again and again... The endless sequence of ideologies. I guess that an ideology is a thought, and since there's no stop to thoughts, there's no stop of ideologies. So, maybe there are no ideologies at all? Shrugged...
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2023 17:36:18 GMT
Let's say it has psychology nature, it means then the very nature of it may be transformed outside, i.e be manipulated by someone? Also, let's say it's psychological, therefore it's a soul or something like that. Hence, any interactions with that nature work, because there's a way to interact with a soul indirectly? Or in some way? The academic foundations, as I can see, is a certain doctrine (maybe separated or badly organised) that is fake? Or it cannot play role of the main basics, because of, let's say, some ideological background of it? I want here to sign one problem that I can't get (it doesn't deal with exactly this theme directly). Let's say there's an ideological background behind some doctrine, but doesn't mean that this doctrine along with its ideology is just another new ideology? And then again and again... The endless sequence of ideologies. I guess that an ideology is a thought, and since there's no stop to thoughts, there's no stop of ideologies. So, maybe there are no ideologies at all? Shrugged...
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
By the way, after the demolition critics of Bertrund Russell on the Frege's project about creating the new foundations to arithmetic ( The Letter to Frege), the latter decided to continue it, and that time taking not the arithmetic, but Geometry. I read Frege's Foundations of Arithmetics, and I guess it was an interesting project. Anyway, from the prospect of Geometry it might have been gotten to its final destination.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 21, 2023 17:40:35 GMT
Let's say it has psychology nature, it means then the very nature of it may be transformed outside, i.e be manipulated by someone? Also, let's say it's psychological, therefore it's a soul or something like that. Hence, any interactions with that nature work, because there's a way to interact with a soul indirectly? Or in some way? The academic foundations, as I can see, is a certain doctrine (maybe separated or badly organised) that is fake? Or it cannot play role of the main basics, because of, let's say, some ideological background of it? I want here to sign one problem that I can't get (it doesn't deal with exactly this theme directly). Let's say there's an ideological background behind some doctrine, but doesn't mean that this doctrine along with its ideology is just another new ideology? And then again and again... The endless sequence of ideologies. I guess that an ideology is a thought, and since there's no stop to thoughts, there's no stop of ideologies. So, maybe there are no ideologies at all? Shrugged...
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
There's also a link to an article that I haven't read yet; as I see it tells more detailed about Frege's thoughts on Geometry. I've got two volumes of Frege's works in my library, but it's written in Russian. Anyway, the originals were written in German. P.S. By the way, sprechen Sie Deutsch?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 22, 2023 8:20:08 GMT
Eugene 2.0The only German I know is their superb coffee, and fascinating ww2 aircraft. But more to the point: the distinction between 'mathematics' and 'proper geometry'.
Proper Geometry is always applied to an actual physical thing in the geometric world. Most salient being the core simplicity of Gravity as the benchmark of method since Newton. And specifically the farce of the 2017 Nobel prize in physics which was robbed from I; such claim proven here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htmAnd by ignoring this, it eats away at the psycho-spiritual fabric of academia and the mind of man, as has been the situation for the last 100 years of compulsive warfare... ...since the charlatan Einstein has become the idol of these warmongering modern day sassenach. Moral depravity and logical atrophy, are two sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 23, 2023 13:11:04 GMT
Eugene 2.0 The only German I know is their superb coffee, and fascinating ww2 aircraft. But more to the point: the distinction between 'mathematics' and 'proper geometry'.
Proper Geometry is always applied to an actual physical thing in the geometric world. Most salient being the core simplicity of Gravity as the benchmark of method since Newton. And specifically the farce of the 2017 Nobel prize in physics which was robbed from I; such claim proven here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htmAnd by ignoring this, it eats away at the psycho-spiritual fabric of academia and the mind of man, as has been the situation for the last 100 years of compulsive warfare... ...since the charlatan Einstein has become the idol of these warmongering modern day sassenach. Moral depravity and logical atrophy, are two sides of the same coin. What do you think of this? I've found it in one of facebook pages recently: Posted by 'Alain Robert', group 'Analytic Philosophy': Is my argument sound 1 . There are sentences and there are negation of sentences. 2. Every scientific sentence has its own negation 3. Either a sentence or its negation is true 4. The theory of relativity can be reduced to a set of sentences and their negations 5. Physicists do not study or know the conditions in which the negated sentences of the theory of relativity would be true Conclusion; Therefore as of right now the theory or relativity cannot be disproved or at least shown to be false.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 23, 2023 22:06:17 GMT
Eugene 2.0 The only German I know is their superb coffee, and fascinating ww2 aircraft. But more to the point: the distinction between 'mathematics' and 'proper geometry'.
Proper Geometry is always applied to an actual physical thing in the geometric world. Most salient being the core simplicity of Gravity as the benchmark of method since Newton. And specifically the farce of the 2017 Nobel prize in physics which was robbed from I; such claim proven here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htmAnd by ignoring this, it eats away at the psycho-spiritual fabric of academia and the mind of man, as has been the situation for the last 100 years of compulsive warfare... ...since the charlatan Einstein has become the idol of these warmongering modern day sassenach. Moral depravity and logical atrophy, are two sides of the same coin. What do you think of this? I've found it in one of facebook pages recently: Posted by 'Alain Robert', group 'Analytic Philosophy': Is my argument sound 1 . There are sentences and there are negation of sentences. 2. Every scientific sentence has its own negation 3. Either a sentence or its negation is true 4. The theory of relativity can be reduced to a set of sentences and their negations 5. Physicists do not study or know the conditions in which the negated sentences of the theory of relativity would be true Conclusion; Therefore as of right now the theory or relativity cannot be disproved or at least shown to be false.
If we delay gravity between the Earth-Moon binary pair to the speed of light, then that delay of about 1.3 seconds
MUST cause the moon to recede from the Earth at about 5km per year.
...and Jupiter will recede from the Sun at 800km per orbit (11.87 years)
...and the Alpha Centauri Binary will separate at 1.4+ million km per orbit (about 81 years)
See full details of many other such analyses here:
So if you accept any of the contemporary timescales for the age of the solar system then you MUST reject Einstein's mathematics outright.
Was the Moon at the Earth's surface less than 70 thousand years ago? Not likely; not even by the most remote margin.
But unless you actually PLACE Einstein's formula into such an algorithm, all you are doing is picking lottery numbers.
But there are well over 50 other reasons to reject Einstein's math listed in full detail on the website - all simply based on proper logic and geometry.
The axiomatic geometry of Pythagoras, Euclid and Newton. But here are 2 very clear reasons to reject Einstein's math as regards the famous perihelion precession of Mercury:
They did not even take into account that the solar system has a Z-axis ! How can you take at face-value the opaque math of those that for the sake of simplicity, simply calculate the solar system as if it were FLAT?
Flat-Earthers be damned, Einstein reckoned on the solar system itself being flat !
Anyone who accepts his math, inadvertently has rejected the Z-axis and is living in a flat 2D universe !
Even worse than being a flat-Earther is to belong to the mindless cult of
pseudo-scientists worshiping that Idol.
I'll stake every inch of my soul on it too.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 23, 2023 22:33:25 GMT
What do you think of this? I've found it in one of facebook pages recently: Posted by 'Alain Robert', group 'Analytic Philosophy': Is my argument sound 1 . There are sentences and there are negation of sentences. 2. Every scientific sentence has its own negation 3. Either a sentence or its negation is true 4. The theory of relativity can be reduced to a set of sentences and their negations 5. Physicists do not study or know the conditions in which the negated sentences of the theory of relativity would be true Conclusion; Therefore as of right now the theory or relativity cannot be disproved or at least shown to be false.
If we delay gravity between the Earth-Moon binary pair to the speed of light, then that delay of about 1.3 seconds
MUST cause the moon to recede from the Earth at about 5km per year.
...and Jupiter will recede from the Sun at 800km per orbit (11.87 years)
...and the Alpha Centauri Binary will separate at 1.4+ million km per orbit (about 81 years)
See full details of many other such analyses here:
So if you accept any of the contemporary timescales for the age of the solar system then you MUST reject Einstein's mathematics outright.
Was the Moon at the Earth's surface less than 70 thousand years ago? Not likely; not even by the most remote margin.
But unless you actually PLACE Einstein's formula into such an algorithm, all you are doing is picking lottery numbers.
But there are well over 50 other reasons to reject Einstein's math listed in full detail on the website - all simply based on proper logic and geometry.
The axiomatic geometry of Pythagoras, Euclid and Newton. But here are 2 very clear reasons to reject Einstein's math as regards the famous perihelion precession of Mercury:
They did not even take into account that the solar system has a Z-axis ! How can you take at face-value the opaque math of those that for the sake of simplicity, simply calculate the solar system as if it were FLAT?
Flat-Earthers be damned, Einstein reckoned on the solar system itself being flat !
Anyone who accepts his math, inadvertently has rejected the Z-axis and is living in a flat 2D universe !
Even worse than being a flat-Earther is to belong to the mindless cult of
pseudo-scientists worshiping that Idol.
I'll stake every inch of my soul on it too.
I also think your version is better. I saw that kind of proof on one of facebook page, and it was about logical side of it. But I also think that to reject the Einstein's is to make it a factual way. Your way is truly better.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 24, 2023 11:26:31 GMT
If we delay gravity between the Earth-Moon binary pair to the speed of light, then that delay of about 1.3 seconds
MUST cause the moon to recede from the Earth at about 5km per year.
...and Jupiter will recede from the Sun at 800km per orbit (11.87 years)
...and the Alpha Centauri Binary will separate at 1.4+ million km per orbit (about 81 years)
See full details of many other such analyses here:
So if you accept any of the contemporary timescales for the age of the solar system then you MUST reject Einstein's mathematics outright.
Was the Moon at the Earth's surface less than 70 thousand years ago? Not likely; not even by the most remote margin.
But unless you actually PLACE Einstein's formula into such an algorithm, all you are doing is picking lottery numbers.
But there are well over 50 other reasons to reject Einstein's math listed in full detail on the website - all simply based on proper logic and geometry.
The axiomatic geometry of Pythagoras, Euclid and Newton. But here are 2 very clear reasons to reject Einstein's math as regards the famous perihelion precession of Mercury:
They did not even take into account that the solar system has a Z-axis ! How can you take at face-value the opaque math of those that for the sake of simplicity, simply calculate the solar system as if it were FLAT?
Flat-Earthers be damned, Einstein reckoned on the solar system itself being flat !
Anyone who accepts his math, inadvertently has rejected the Z-axis and is living in a flat 2D universe !
Even worse than being a flat-Earther is to belong to the mindless cult of
pseudo-scientists worshiping that Idol.
I'll stake every inch of my soul on it too.
I also think your version is better. I saw that kind of proof on one of facebook page, and it was about logical side of it. But I also think that to reject the Einstein's is to make it a factual way. Your way is truly better.
But the implications for the foundation of has become academia ! This ! is consequential to their "math", such that it erodes the very core of the mind of humanity.
All teachers that endorse the junk, get promoted ever more highly.
Its not just about being better. My algorithm is vastly simpler, and more accurate.
Theirs is unworkable and illogical in the extreme. But under-signing the 2017 Nobel prize in physics was no less than a 1000 PhD++ titles.
It should be clear to anyone who thinks clearly that when the Nobel committee claimed:
Nothing gets past the event horizon of the black-hole, but that they observed a pair of them merging in a fraction of a second, and this they claimed was proof that gravity emitted by a black-hole moves at light-speed, they said, even though light itself moves at that speed, and light moves in precisely same geometric framework as gravity, but the light does not get out, but the gravity can -
even though they already said NOTHING gets out of a black-hole... even that moving at light-speed...
When the 'scientists' by the legion said all those things, nobody really seemed to notice the glaring lack of logic in those sentences.
Were they all just baffled-by-the-bullshit surrounding it?
And when I have consistently pointed this out, still nobody seems to be able to do anything about it,
even those that say I am correct... where is their passion for truth?
How does the junior student hope to see prosperity in a system that endorses opaque word-garbage, and rejects transparent open-source pure computational logic?
But OH! Dear reader, you have almost certainly only scratched the surface of the rabbit-hole...
Only when you THOROUGHLY comprehend this:
will you BEGIN to see the scale of the problems that nest within one-another...
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 24, 2023 21:08:55 GMT
Let's say it has psychology nature, it means then the very nature of it may be transformed outside, i.e be manipulated by someone? Also, let's say it's psychological, therefore it's a soul or something like that. Hence, any interactions with that nature work, because there's a way to interact with a soul indirectly? Or in some way? The academic foundations, as I can see, is a certain doctrine (maybe separated or badly organised) that is fake? Or it cannot play role of the main basics, because of, let's say, some ideological background of it? I want here to sign one problem that I can't get (it doesn't deal with exactly this theme directly). Let's say there's an ideological background behind some doctrine, but doesn't mean that this doctrine along with its ideology is just another new ideology? And then again and again... The endless sequence of ideologies. I guess that an ideology is a thought, and since there's no stop to thoughts, there's no stop of ideologies. So, maybe there are no ideologies at all? Shrugged...
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
Yet the triangle applies to an infinite number of things thus resulting in its truth value as indefinite.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 27, 2023 9:34:39 GMT
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
Yet the triangle applies to an infinite number of things thus resulting in its truth value as indefinite. The aim is to provide a workable foundation to knowledge. Not to try and define all knowledge in a quick phrase.
So the foundation does yield infinite possibility, but any disagreement as to what is the foundation, can only be considered in light of some other claim to such foundation.
The prerequisite to such foundation being absolute clarity. (Simplicity, certainty, universally useful)
Now any contrarian can claim there is no clarity to geometry, most especially the Einstein mob.
But my point is that those that cannot grasp such foundation, as being axiomatic, are doing so on the basis of anti-social emotional problems, or lack of moral backbone; or most likely, both of those.
Because if they can articulate Einstein's sophistry,
then they should actually be logically capable of real geometry.
But for some, all knowledge seems to look like complex sophistry?
But I wonder how it is possible to be able formulate real sentences, even memorize massive treatises,
but be unable to apply the simple axioms of set-theory to math problems.
It can only be lack of moral backbone that seeks advantage by perpetuating the popular lies and myths, that are so easily
refuted, like the black-hole fiasco:
NOTHING gets out of the black-hole, even if it moves at light-speed. Gravity gets out of the black hole, it moves at light-speed.
When they said nothing, they defined it as ZERO INFORMATION. Gravity consists of the information of the mass and position of the object at least.
So we are ruled by legions of naked emperors. Tyrants with the emotional capacity of two-year olds.
World war, is thus inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2023 15:49:25 GMT
The answer is:
proper Geometry: Euclid, Pythagoras, Newton
Yet the triangle applies to an infinite number of things thus resulting in its truth value as indefinite. Well, this question about the indefinitability isn't a brand new one. The same ones were asked by Boltzano (Italian and Czech mathematician) and George Cantor (Britain). Actually, the question about the infitinites went to the question whether or not those infinities were countable, and how could we compare them by each other. As for the question of how many truth values? - Well, this isn't a new one either. Check this paper out, if you'd like to it's dated to 1910: www.academia.edu/55781251/Jan_%C5%81ukasiewicz_1910_The_Principle_of_Contradiction_in_Aristotle_Introduction_and_Ch_1
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 1, 2023 20:47:24 GMT
Yet the triangle applies to an infinite number of things thus resulting in its truth value as indefinite. The aim is to provide a workable foundation to knowledge. Not to try and define all knowledge in a quick phrase.
So the foundation does yield infinite possibility, but any disagreement as to what is the foundation, can only be considered in light of some other claim to such foundation.
The prerequisite to such foundation being absolute clarity. (Simplicity, certainty, universally useful)
Now any contrarian can claim there is no clarity to geometry, most especially the Einstein mob.
But my point is that those that cannot grasp such foundation, as being axiomatic, are doing so on the basis of anti-social emotional problems, or lack of moral backbone; or most likely, both of those.
Because if they can articulate Einstein's sophistry,
then they should actually be logically capable of real geometry.
But for some, all knowledge seems to look like complex sophistry?
But I wonder how it is possible to be able formulate real sentences, even memorize massive treatises,
but be unable to apply the simple axioms of set-theory to math problems.
It can only be lack of moral backbone that seeks advantage by perpetuating the popular lies and myths, that are so easily
refuted, like the black-hole fiasco:
NOTHING gets out of the black-hole, even if it moves at light-speed. Gravity gets out of the black hole, it moves at light-speed.
When they said nothing, they defined it as ZERO INFORMATION. Gravity consists of the information of the mass and position of the object at least.
So we are ruled by legions of naked emperors. Tyrants with the emotional capacity of two-year olds.
World war, is thus inevitable.
If the foundation yields infinite possibility then the foundation is infinite. If the foundation is infinite then it is paradoxically indefinite even though it is defined. The foundations of knowledge result in paradox and contradiction. As such, if the foundation is to be accepted then contradiction/paradox must be accepted as well. Personally speaking I have no problem accepting contradiction/paradox but that is subjective. The foundations necessitate a subjective state in the respect that some things are accepted and some things are not accepted. This nature of acception has no rules, i.e. anything can be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 2, 2023 7:30:49 GMT
The aim is to provide a workable foundation to knowledge. Not to try and define all knowledge in a quick phrase.
So the foundation does yield infinite possibility, but any disagreement as to what is the foundation, can only be considered in light of some other claim to such foundation.
The prerequisite to such foundation being absolute clarity. (Simplicity, certainty, universally useful)
Now any contrarian can claim there is no clarity to geometry, most especially the Einstein mob.
But my point is that those that cannot grasp such foundation, as being axiomatic, are doing so on the basis of anti-social emotional problems, or lack of moral backbone; or most likely, both of those.
Because if they can articulate Einstein's sophistry,
then they should actually be logically capable of real geometry.
But for some, all knowledge seems to look like complex sophistry?
But I wonder how it is possible to be able formulate real sentences, even memorize massive treatises,
but be unable to apply the simple axioms of set-theory to math problems.
It can only be lack of moral backbone that seeks advantage by perpetuating the popular lies and myths, that are so easily
refuted, like the black-hole fiasco:
NOTHING gets out of the black-hole, even if it moves at light-speed. Gravity gets out of the black hole, it moves at light-speed.
When they said nothing, they defined it as ZERO INFORMATION. Gravity consists of the information of the mass and position of the object at least.
So we are ruled by legions of naked emperors. Tyrants with the emotional capacity of two-year olds.
World war, is thus inevitable.
If the foundation yields infinite possibility then the foundation is infinite. If the foundation is infinite then it is paradoxically indefinite even though it is defined. The foundations of knowledge result in paradox and contradiction. As such, if the foundation is to be accepted then contradiction/paradox must be accepted as well. Personally speaking I have no problem accepting contradiction/paradox but that is subjective. The foundations necessitate a subjective state in the respect that some things are accepted and some things are not accepted. This nature of acception has no rules, i.e. anything can be accepted. There are an infinite number of ways to play with a ball. That does not make the ball itself infinite; in-and-of-itself.
There is a vast difference between paradox and contradiction, even though they can often appear similar due to the limits of language.
When they say "a black hole, is not really a hole", that is a paradox because of pre-conceptions as to what the definition of a hole really is (a gap in a solid object).
The word 'hole' is thus used to mean two different things in their contexts. There is no contradiction.
When they say, "nothing gets out of the black hole" but "gravity gets out of the black-hole"...
then, its a contradiction because gravity is a thing.
We can see this by looking at further definition of their event horizon. They say "no information ever crosses the event horizon".
The contradiction should be seen for blatant untruth that it is because gravity contains the information of position and mass, and thus over time, also velocity.
The REAL issue is:
Does the establishment that perpetuates such nonsense as black-holes, have at their heart the interest of truth and humanity?
If they lie on such a fundamentally obvious level, how can their laws and instructions be taken as trustworthy?
Or is it that those that blindly obey lies, end up on the next battlefield fighting for their lives, and wondering WHY?
|
|