|
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 MAYA-EL on Mar 2, 2023 9:31:07 GMT
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...
I don't understand how scientists can even observe these black holes? I mean what are they looking at? And how is it that they can see it?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Mar 2, 2023 16:33:48 GMT
Hi, fellows. Your conversation is interesting because you seem to understand each other... -- or is it ONE ANOTHER? In my youth as a philosophy student, I never dealt with the issue of the foundation of knowledge or, for that matter, of morals or of rights. I remember only St. Augustine: GOD is the CAUSA/cause of Being, RATIO/basis of Understanding [knowledge], and pattern/basis of Good Willing / Benevolence. {causa essendi, ratio intelligendi, ordo bene volendi}. He assumed he had true knowledge to begin with.... NOW you make me wonder, must the foundation be something other than that which is allegedly known? Big issue: what a word denotes [= what is known, held in mind] may or may not be real. PLEASE deal with the very concept of foundation.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 3, 2023 8:50:14 GMT
Hi, fellows. Your conversation is interesting because you seem to understand each other... -- or is it ONE ANOTHER? In my youth as a philosophy student, I never dealt with the issue of the foundation of knowledge or, for that matter, of morals or of rights. I remember only St. Augustine: GOD is the CAUSA/cause of Being, RATIO/basis of Understanding [knowledge], and pattern/basis of Good Willing / Benevolence. {causa essendi, ratio intelligendi, ordo bene volendi}. He assumed he had true knowledge to begin with.... NOW you make me wonder, must the foundation be something other than that which is allegedly known? Big issue: what a word denotes [= what is known, held in mind] may or may not be real. PLEASE deal with the very concept of foundation. In the battle for importance of value between: benevolence (a subjective inner quality), and... mathematics (based on real objective geometry), one without the other will be equally disastrous,
albeit each will have its own different texture of disasterousness.
Without mathematics, the food runs out, and animal instincts beyond benevolence, take on a life of their own.
Simple benevolence is often simply tasty.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 3, 2023 9:06:21 GMT
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...
I don't understand how scientists can even observe these black holes? I mean what are they looking at? And how is it that they can see it?
There is a heavily processed image claiming to be a black hole doing the rounds, but when you look at the amount of processing they did to get that image, its a bit dubious.
Nonetheless, from the perspective of gravity structures, black-holes are just number-spaghetti at their most ambitious.
This is the mathematical symbol (left, LIGO detector) that is the observation at the core of the issue.
The image on the right is my algorithm which evolved that image, but NOT using their physics.
My algorithm uses (almost) pure Newtonian physics.
Their physics PREDICTED this graph:
Whose physics more closely resembles the actual graph?
Its of paramount importance to appreciate the difference between observation, and analysis.
The LIGO detectors claim to be gravity detectors on the basis of the rubbish physics of Einstein.
What they really are is cosmic seismographs. A pair of sensitive detectors 3000km apart. Any local vibration is thus excluded, and only patterns which BOTH register, are then recorded.
So that signal being recorded by both detectors a split second apart was proof that the signal was moving at light-speed, and not instantly.
But they ASSUME that it was a gravity signal in the first instance, because they already claim to
"KNOW that gravity moves at light-speed"
I deconstruct all the geometry involved in this article, the conclusions of which speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 3, 2023 15:57:25 GMT
I don't understand how scientists can even observe these black holes? I mean what are they looking at? And how is it that they can see it?
There is a heavily processed image claiming to be a black hole doing the rounds, but when you look at the amount of processing they did to get that image, its a bit dubious.
Nonetheless, from the perspective of gravity structures, black-holes are just number-spaghetti at their most ambitious.
This is the mathematical symbol (left, LIGO detector) that is the observation at the core of the issue.
The image on the right is my algorithm which evolved that image, but NOT using their physics.
My algorithm uses (almost) pure Newtonian physics.
Their physics PREDICTED this graph:
Whose physics more closely resembles the actual graph?
Its of paramount importance to appreciate the difference between observation, and analysis.
The LIGO detectors claim to be gravity detectors on the basis of the rubbish physics of Einstein.
What they really are is cosmic seismographs. A pair of sensitive detectors 3000km apart. Any local vibration is thus excluded, and only patterns which BOTH register, are then recorded.
So that signal being recorded by both detectors a split second apart was proof that the signal was moving at light-speed, and not instantly.
But they ASSUME that it was a gravity signal in the first instance, because they already claim to
"KNOW that gravity moves at light-speed"
I deconstruct all the geometry involved in this article, the conclusions of which speak for themselves.
Wait? Wthat?.. I'm still confused, so they used cosmic seismograph thing here on earth and with that data they concluded that there's a black hole? I'm so confused
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Mar 3, 2023 17:20:11 GMT
Hi, fellows. Your conversation is interesting because you seem to understand each other... -- or is it ONE ANOTHER? In my youth as a philosophy student, I never dealt with the issue of the foundation of knowledge or, for that matter, of morals or of rights. I remember only St. Augustine: GOD is the CAUSA/cause of Being, RATIO/basis of Understanding [knowledge], and pattern/basis of Good Willing / Benevolence. {causa essendi, ratio intelligendi, ordo bene volendi}. He assumed he had true knowledge to begin with.... NOW you make me wonder, must the foundation be something other than that which is allegedly known? Big issue: what a word denotes [= what is known, held in mind] may or may not be real. PLEASE deal with the very concept of foundation. In the battle for importance of value between: benevolence (a subjective inner quality), and... mathematics (based on real objective geometry), one without the other will be equally disastrous,
albeit each will have its own different texture of disasterousness.
Without mathematics, the food runs out, and animal instincts beyond benevolence, take on a life of their own.
Simple benevolence is often simply tasty.
Let's get back on track."Benevolence" was merely a rephrasing of GoodWilling, not a foundation.... For Augustine there are 3 species of Foundation, which he enigmatically calls Causa, Ratio [reason on account of which understanding can take place (in humans)], and Ordo [model? prototype? of benevolence or, technically, any willing]. His God [the Trinity] is all 3. IS ANY FOUNDATION (as for true knowledge) REALLY NEEDED?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2023 19:10:00 GMT
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?
1. If there are an infinite number of ways to play with a ball then the ball's identity is dependent upon infinity thus it's identity becomes paradoxical as well.
2. Paradox and contradiction, in some respects, can be viewed as synonyms. When they are not viewed as synonyms the paradox can be viewed as unified opposites and the contradiction can be viewed as opposing opposites...either way they are an observation of opposites.
3. The fact that contextual differences can result in one thing meaning many things necessitates the context as dividing the same thing against itself...it becomes a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2023 11:59:37 GMT
There is a heavily processed image claiming to be a black hole doing the rounds, but when you look at the amount of processing they did to get that image, its a bit dubious.
Nonetheless, from the perspective of gravity structures, black-holes are just number-spaghetti at their most ambitious.
This is the mathematical symbol (left, LIGO detector) that is the observation at the core of the issue.
The image on the right is my algorithm which evolved that image, but NOT using their physics.
My algorithm uses (almost) pure Newtonian physics.
Their physics PREDICTED this graph:
Whose physics more closely resembles the actual graph?
Its of paramount importance to appreciate the difference between observation, and analysis.
The LIGO detectors claim to be gravity detectors on the basis of the rubbish physics of Einstein.
What they really are is cosmic seismographs. A pair of sensitive detectors 3000km apart. Any local vibration is thus excluded, and only patterns which BOTH register, are then recorded.
So that signal being recorded by both detectors a split second apart was proof that the signal was moving at light-speed, and not instantly.
But they ASSUME that it was a gravity signal in the first instance, because they already claim to
"KNOW that gravity moves at light-speed"
I deconstruct all the geometry involved in this article, the conclusions of which speak for themselves.
Wait? Wthat?.. I'm still confused, so they used cosmic seismograph thing here on earth and with that data they concluded that there's a black hole? I'm so confused
Well there was a vibration a split-second apart when measured
from the 2 observatories which are 3000km apart from one another.
So a vibration that is so wide in its movement path where it can be measured
can only have come from beyond the earth.
But they already had some 'theory' about black-holes that would allegedly give them a certain vibration pattern.
(Their theory is mathematical spaghetti, btw)
So when they found the pattern in blue, they claimed it was black-holes. BUT!
Its just a vibration pattern.
And as you can see, the pattern with all the detail (termed 'ringdown')
has a broad oscillation in advance of the main high energy event.
Whereas the observed vibration (in blue) is IDENTICAL to what
my newtonian algorithm predicts...
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2023 12:03:14 GMT
In the battle for importance of value between: benevolence (a subjective inner quality), and... mathematics (based on real objective geometry), one without the other will be equally disastrous,
albeit each will have its own different texture of disasterousness.
Without mathematics, the food runs out, and animal instincts beyond benevolence, take on a life of their own.
Simple benevolence is often simply tasty.
Let's get back on track."Benevolence" was merely a rephrasing of GoodWilling, not a foundation.... For Augustine there are 3 species of Foundation, which he enigmatically calls Causa, Ratio [reason on account of which understanding can take place (in humans)], and Ordo [model? prototype? of benevolence or, technically, any willing]. His God [the Trinity] is all 3. IS ANY FOUNDATION (as for true knowledge) REALLY NEEDED?
Academia supposes such a foundation regardless of what needs be; or, what beings need.
Alors! Nature abhors a vacuum.
If a real foundation of knowledge is not the bedrock of education institutions, then chaos will take that place, and that is why the world is degenerating into ww4.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 5, 2023 12:07:31 GMT
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?
3. The fact that contextual differences can result in one thing meaning many things necessitates the context as dividing the same thing against itself...it becomes a contradiction.
... it becomes a paradox.
There are no contradictions in the ontological universe.
A contradiction is a state of mind as a consequence of
ideas that are mutually exclusive with one another
in the physical world.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 5, 2023 20:35:04 GMT
Wait? Wthat?.. I'm still confused, so they used cosmic seismograph thing here on earth and with that data they concluded that there's a black hole? I'm so confused
Well there was a vibration a split-second apart when measured
from the 2 observatories which are 3000km apart from one another.
So a vibration that is so wide in its movement path where it can be measured
can only have come from beyond the earth.
But they already had some 'theory' about black-holes that would allegedly give them a certain vibration pattern.
(Their theory is mathematical spaghetti, btw)
So when they found the pattern in blue, they claimed it was black-holes. BUT!
Its just a vibration pattern.
And as you can see, the pattern with all the detail (termed 'ringdown')
has a broad oscillation in advance of the main high energy event.
Whereas the observed vibration (in blue) is IDENTICAL to what
my newtonian algorithm predicts...
That's crazy I would of never of com to the conclusion that black holes exist based on that test that's just pure illogical agenda based conclusions IMO scientists have lost their minds
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 6, 2023 11:29:53 GMT
Well there was a vibration a split-second apart when measured
from the 2 observatories which are 3000km apart from one another.
So a vibration that is so wide in its movement path where it can be measured
can only have come from beyond the earth.
But they already had some 'theory' about black-holes that would allegedly give them a certain vibration pattern.
(Their theory is mathematical spaghetti, btw)
So when they found the pattern in blue, they claimed it was black-holes. BUT!
Its just a vibration pattern.
And as you can see, the pattern with all the detail (termed 'ringdown')
has a broad oscillation in advance of the main high energy event.
Whereas the observed vibration (in blue) is IDENTICAL to what
my newtonian algorithm predicts...
That's crazy I would of never of com to the conclusion that black holes exist based on that test that's just pure illogical agenda based conclusions IMO scientists have lost their minds I think it is a deliberate puzzle.
The sophistry is so articulate, and utterly global,
and yet almost every claim is mutually exclusive with another one of their claims, as a matter of the foundational logic of set-theory.
The entire episode epitomizes the fundamental difference between
observation and analysis.
So it in no way can just be written off as inaccurate and weak in its totality. Because its only the logical analysis that is appalling. Too appalling to be considered as anything more than a subtle question.
Like back in the day when telescopes were first invented, and they were all told that it was discovered that Saturn had 'ears'.
The observational data in its raw form, however,
has to be taken as real for sheer scale of development all over the world, these observatories have consistently revealed these signals.
So in order to filter what the signal REALLY is, one has to first decimate their entire astrophysics paradigm, AND replace it with a proper one - Newtonian.
After replicating the physics in algorithms, I wrote this article at the time:
which answers every question,
both: empirical, and in terms of properly logical physics.
About 7 years ago, I still see no evidence that anyone has read the article properly.
I did consider become Unabomber 2.0 for a while with the
express hope that someone might read the article. That that just seemed a bit extreme, and probably would not even work.
It is a 30-40 page article. But I did make the html summary about a quarter of that.
Now I know how Jonah felt.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 8, 2023 17:09:45 GMT
3. The fact that contextual differences can result in one thing meaning many things necessitates the context as dividing the same thing against itself...it becomes a contradiction.
... it becomes a paradox.
There are no contradictions in the ontological universe.
A contradiction is a state of mind as a consequence of
ideas that are mutually exclusive with one another
in the physical world.
The fact that the universe results in our thoughts and thoughts have contradictions necessitates the universe resulting in contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 9, 2023 20:08:23 GMT
... it becomes a paradox.
There are no contradictions in the ontological universe.
A contradiction is a state of mind as a consequence of
ideas that are mutually exclusive with one another
in the physical world.
The fact that the universe results in our thoughts and thoughts have contradictions necessitates the universe resulting in contradiction. The universe only contributes to our thoughts. Nowhere on close inspection empirically are there contradictions in the physical universe. Thoughts alone can have contradictions and errors. But when one false thought passes from one person to another, via the universe, the error is still contained only in the thoughts themselves.
Its entirely achievable to halt the false thought, by being sensitive to its dissonance, and examining the situation further until the truth is revealed.
Only by properly comprehending the Newtonian model will you see that real math has no contradictions. Until then all you see is a knot of confusions.
Computer programming languages FORCE you mind to obey proper logic. They are the most patient and the most unforgiving teachers.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 20:55:02 GMT
The fact that the universe results in our thoughts and thoughts have contradictions necessitates the universe resulting in contradiction. The universe only contributes to our thoughts. Nowhere on close inspection empirically are there contradictions in the physical universe. Thoughts alone can have contradictions and errors. But when one false thought passes from one person to another, via the universe, the error is still contained only in the thoughts themselves.
Its entirely achievable to halt the false thought, by being sensitive to its dissonance, and examining the situation further until the truth is revealed.
Only by properly comprehending the Newtonian model will you see that real math has no contradictions. Until then all you see is a knot of confusions.
Computer programming languages FORCE you mind to obey proper logic. They are the most patient and the most unforgiving teachers.
1. Yet thoughts are physical as evidenced by there activity within the brain or even, at a stretch, the heart. 2. The observation of movement is an observation of contradiction as one thing becomes distinct from another, this manifestation of distinction is a manifestation of contradiction.
|
|