PDA

View Full Version : Mathematical Philosphy...a little...maybe...


Mr. Robin Parsons
07-24-2006, 03:37 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So A Short 'Math' lesson before we go?

Your Natural Limits of the well, zero and One, we start at 'zero' (the somewhere beneath your feet) the Beginning, and we proceed halfway towards One, Our Goal! Now, we measure the remaining distance 1/2 divide by 2 = 1/4 and proceed that farther forwards to (3/4's of the way there...) towards Our Goal! (one!), now we take the distance remaining, 1/4 move Half of that Distance Forwards, or 1/8'th and we arrive at 7/8'ths of the way THERE!!, now we take the remaining distance 1/16'th and Divide that By 'Half' (or 'two' or '2') and move that far CLOSER to our Goal....Xenocrate Principal will now allow us to Venture Beyond our Ability to Physically Measure...anything, and for as long as (the Function/actiontaken of/is) = (n + 1) because the action finds no limit, yet the Limit is there in Physical reality...

To think that you would go to something outside of yourself (to 'one'...over there) is Completely Against what Infinite is, as it is In/Un-conceivable, ergo: there is *NO image available* ....not a thought nor a 'Point' or what a thought actually is a "Sensation" in your Brain.

Mathematics is a Language, as such it too have abilities to describe, jut that, as is demonstrable, its' ability to describe has descriptive ability that Does Not Describe the real and/as Actual, Physical matter & energies at play/Interplay.

Simple the Concept of Zero well, it's the Start Point, but something is there realistically where you stand, but zero as the Absence of Something describes something that Doesn't exist, and there is a Logic to that too, (as a 'BlackHole' {A site wherein background light is Also being removed} in Space shows) BUT it's Application can be abused ...well it really isn't the Math that "Fools" but it can be used by a 'Human' and they can therein Fool themselves sorta, in certain Manners, the need for reference begetting the Teaching of 'Potential Gravitational Energy' when the Reality is it is 'Actual Gravitational Energy' that is creating the 'Rest State' Status we use Zero, but it is a Misnomer of reality if the Thoughts follow that as real ...just because of the Math Method/Language.

No Delineation of Space means it cannot be Drawn, or Imaged, and/or in infinite 'speak' (mindspace) 'Conceived of'

If you don't believe that 'symmetry' in the Universe is Asymmetrical, go Look in a Mirror ....when you can see it(?) you can walk ..away otherwise, keep looking ...but please don't 'bang your head' on it.

So ...on to this Guy "Banging his head" on a Brick wall...



-------

The complex oscillations of "strings" is a premise that should not be taken lightly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears that you agree with many of my premises; I must point out that supersymmetry is incorporated into many of the Standard Models that I rail against; and, which I thought, apparently mistakenly, that you supported. "Many"?? Where?


Fundamental motion which subsequently becomes the fundamental forces is perfectly symmetrical. and your evidence of that is?? None

Thus, it would be correct to say that all nature evolves from symmetry. Only since you have assumed yourself right...

The usual example of symmetry breaking: "a spherical mass balanced on a point falls asymmetrically" is more an example of uncertainty than symmetry breaking. No More like Gravity.

It could be said that the spherical mass follows the "uncertainty" of symmetry; all fundamental nature begins with the symmetry of emergent seminal motion that is comparable to that motion which would arise from the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere; however, diversity begins when this symmetry becomes ellipsoidal in the formation of the Inverse Square Law, dimensions, and seminal quanta. dimensionless point thats imaginary, completely Imaginary, it does not exist other then as a 'thought' in-YOUR-BRain.


Most symmetry breaking concepts result from not understanding the complex harmony and resonances of symmetrical ellipsoids."It's all there fault cause they don't understand it all the way you do" ....as opposed to ...what? Symmetry breaking has been observed?

Of course, the concept of symmetry breaking depends upon the precise definition of how asymmetry is defined. However, my point is that Nature begins with perfect symmetry and subsequent symmetry breaking manifestations are that we imperfectly understand the subsequent harmonics and resonances of fundamental symmetry.Your Route of the 'Perfect' Creating this Asymmetrical "Imperfection" ...there is a Way, just that that is not it....


It is interesting to note that Pulsoid Theory rationalizes all the known objections that you raise concerning string theory and its offshoots (ST) as well as the enigmas presented by supersymmetry (SUSY).Your theory "rationalizes all of the know objections" that (I) raised??? HUH?? What?? Where...?? no Where, thats where....

A caveat: SUSY is one of the most important theories of conventional physics; it comes very, very close to explaining the micro environment; closer than any other rationalization; however, it is almost useless in attempting to explain current Cosmological enigmas.That is the Most Beautifully Contrived self contradiction that (I) have probably EVERrrr read.

The complex oscillations of string like phenomena is a premise that should not be taken lightly. A major problem of ST is that it is trying to reconcile Standard Model forces that are metaphysical. If Metaphysical then they are beyond the reach of Science as Science only follows the real And testable (Solids/sorta/liquidandgasthats'why) as 'tangible' to even a meter such as a Geiger Counter or television Antenna

(Premature??)

It is premature to reject the portions of existing theory that will become part of the rationalization for a "new physics" paradigm shift.Unless there is Good evidence that they are Not descriptive of 'reality' and if that is what the Answer being saught is as the Math is good crytographic realm


♪ "....Another one bites the dust...." ♪

Pre-mature?

or ...Post-mature?

Epsilon=One
07-24-2006, 05:36 PM
To think that you would go to something outside of yourself (to 'one'...over there) is Completely Against what Infinite is, as it is In/Un-conceivable, ergo: there is *NO image available* ....not a thought nor a 'Point' or what a thought actually is a "Sensation" in your Brain.As your math lesson, in the post above, indicates, you seem to confuse the infinite (something very large and unending such as a number system) with Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity) (a singularity that is considered as a dual limit that can only be approached and that is defined by speed). This is a mistake made by many mathematicians including most of the early to mid 20th century great ones.

Mathematics is a Language, as such it too have abilities to describe, jut that, as is demonstrable, its' ability to describe has descriptive ability that Does Not Describe the real and/as Actual, Physical matter & energies at play/Interplay.Mathematics is a "Language." But, it is much more. Pure (fundamental) mathematics is a reflection of shapes and values (numbers) and their manipulations, which are a direct reflection of Natural manifestations. It can be said that Nature defines mathematics; rather than, mathematics describes Nature. There were values, their manipulations, and geometry before there were anthropoids.

Simple the Concept of Zero well, it's the Start Point, but something is there realistically where you stand, but zero as the Absence of Something describes something that Doesn't exist, and there is a Logic to that too, (as a 'BlackHole' {A site wherein background light is Also being removed} in Space shows) BUT it's Application can be abused ...well it really isn't the Math that "Fools" but it can be used by a 'Human' and they can therein Fool themselves sorta, in certain Manners, the need for reference begetting the Teaching of 'Potential Gravitational Energy' when the Reality is it is 'Actual Gravitational Energy' that is creating the 'Rest State' Status we use Zero, but it is a Misnomer of reality if the Thoughts follow that as real ...just because of the Math Method/Language.You are confusing different connotations/concepts of "zero." Unfortunately, mathematicians have left these differences to what the laymen knows as one word without subtleties . . . "zero."

If you don't believe that 'symmetry' in the Universe is Asymmetrical, go Look in a Mirror ....when you can see it(?) you can walk ..away otherwise, keep looking ...but please don't 'bang your head' on it.You don't seem to understand the term "symmetry" as it is used by nuclear physicists. As I mentioned in my original post, a comment that you omitted, it is difficult to discuss symmetry without beginning with definitions. (While on the subject of your editing: Please stop editing my posts without giving proper notice to the reader of the changes that you attribe to me. It is dishonest. You give my writing your emphasis and inanity that differs from my intent.)

With that said, thank you for so prominently reposting my comments. The tradeoff with your inappropriate and non-responsive comments is a small price to pay for the emphasis. With such non-response you strengthen my argument.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-24-2006, 05:37 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

To think that you would go to something outside of yourself (to 'one'...over there) is Completely Against what Infinite is, as it is In/Un-conceivable, ergo: there is *NO image available* ....not a thought nor a 'Point' or what a thought actually is a "Sensation" in your Brain.Oh Yes, just so you don't get me wrong, (I) have told of it before (and stick! by it) it is a "Sensation" as in; you are sensory/sensate to it, (the Infinite) and it to you, but not nessecarily in your head the way you would/might think/concieve of it, it is NOT a thought, but it is a feeling/feeeling/felt 'thing/sensation' .....most would tell you simply "Heart felt" but that advice needs the Caution of; Bewary of the Nice feeling lies in your heart, too....

Epsilon=One
07-24-2006, 06:44 PM
Oh Yes, just so you don't get me wrong, (I) have told of it before (and stick! by it) it is a "Sensation" as in; you are sensory/sensate to it, (the Infinite) and it to you, but not nessecarily in your head the way you would/might think/concieve of it, it is NOT a thought, but it is a feeling/feeeling/felt 'thing/sensation' .....most would tell you simply "Heart felt" but that advice needs the Caution of; Bewary of the Nice feeling lies in your heart, too....With all these words, I'm not certain; are you trying to say "the Infinite" is not a hallucination but sort of like an itch . . . or maybe a heart affliction?

Of course you have capitalized the word "infinite"; so, you can define it as you wish; only, I'm not sure what that definition of yours is with all your typographic histrionics.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 01:34 PM
With all these words, I'm not certain; are you trying to say "the Infinite" is not a hallucination but sort of like an itch . . . or maybe a heart affliction?
Of course you have capitalized the word "infinite"; so, you can define it as you wish; only, I'm not sure what that definition of yours is with all your typographic histrionics.Why you don't know "what it is" is because you have choosen to ...not know.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 01:43 PM
As your math lesson, in the post above, indicates, you seem to confuse the infinite (something very large and unending such as a number system) with (a singularity that is considered as a dual limit that can only be approached and that is defined by speed). This is a mistake made by many mathematicians including most of the early to mid 20th century great ones.
Mathematics is a "Language." But, it is much more. Pure (fundamental) mathematics is a reflection of shapes and values (numbers) and their manipulations, which are a direct reflection of Natural manifestations. It can be said that Nature defines mathematics; rather than, mathematics describes Nature. There were values, their manipulations, and geometry before there were anthropoids.
You are confusing different connotations/concepts of "zero." Unfortunately, mathematicians have left these differences to what the laymen knows as one word without subtleties . . . "zero."
You don't seem to understand the term "symmetry" as it is used by nuclear physicists. As I mentioned in my original post, a comment that you omitted, it is difficult to discuss symmetry without beginning with definitions. (While on the subject of your editing: Please stop editing my posts without giving proper notice to the reader of the changes that you attribe to me. It is dishonest. You give my writing your emphasis and inanity that differs from my intent.)
With that said, thank you for so prominently reposting my comments. The tradeoff with your inappropriate and non-responsive comments is a small price to pay for the emphasis. With such non-response you strengthen my argument. "Dual limits" to Infinity has TWO identify-able POINTS hence; it is Both 'Concievable' and can be 'Drawn/Imaged' hence; is Singularily Well defined (by Delineation) Space ...So, as (I) seem to have to keep repeating to you...
Infinity!-is!-not!-that!

The rest of the tripe doesn't even have the taste of 'good' tripe

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 04:08 PM
Why you don't know "what it is" is because you have choosen to ...not know.I can not understand the meaning of your response to the quote that you posted above it. Can you clarify?

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 04:13 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
(SNIP) I can not understand the meaning of your response (SNoP)Doesn't surprise me.

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 04:22 PM
"Dual limits" to Infinity has TWO identify-able POINTS hence; it is Both 'Concievable' and can be 'Drawn/Imaged' hence; is Singularily Well defined (by Delineation) Space ...So, as (I) seem to have to keep repeating to you...
Infinity!-is!-not!-that!What are you saying? Are you saying that there is not a relationship or "meeting" of the infinite and the infinitesimal? Are you saying, that one, or neither, are not at a mathematical limit? Or, that there is more than one limit (or singularity) that is not reacheable from Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality)?

Please clarify your meaning.

It would also be nice if you could, for once, reply directly to a question when you reply. There is some merit for the Viewer to clarifing the issues, or differences we have, concerning the definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

Also, please, do not continue to edit my posts that you quote. It is dishonest.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 04:28 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

What are you saying? Are you saying that there is not a relationship or "meeting" of the infinite and the infinitesimal? Are you saying, that one, or neither, are not at a mathematical limit? Or, that there is more than one limit (or singularity) that is not reacheable from Reality?[/I]Please clarify your meaning.It would also be nice if you could, for once, reply directly to a question when you reply. There is some merit for the Viewer to clarifing the issues, or differences we have, concerning the definition of Infinity.Also, please, do not continue to edit my posts that you quote. It is dishonest.No.

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 05:33 PM
What are you saying? Are you saying that there is not a relationship or "meeting" of the infinite and the infinitesimal? Are you saying, that one, or neither, are not at a mathematical limit? Or, that there is more than one limit (or singularity) that is not reacheable from Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Reality)?

Please clarify your meaning.

It would also be nice if you could, for once, reply directly to a question when you reply. There is some merit for the Viewer to clarifing the issues, or differences we have, concerning the definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

Also, please, do not continue to edit my posts that you quote. It is dishonest.No.Fine. Then as there is no further elaboration, I can only conclude that you agree entirely with my definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

If such is not the situation, please elaborate.

Also, please, do not continue to edit my posts that you quote. It is dishonest.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 05:50 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Fine. Then as there is no further elaboration, I can only conclude that you agree entirely with my definition of Infinity
If such is not the situation, please elaborate.
Also, please, do not continue to edit my posts that you quote. It is dishonest.Figures you would conclude that, shows you really can NOT read, nor especially...

C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-D...

....What you supposedly read.

Your definition of Infinity is *Spurious* *Specious* *Fallacious* Illogic.

....and NO! (I) will not 'elaborate' on that, as anyone who can read (other then you) could/can figure it out.

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 05:54 PM
Doesn't surprise me.I'm sure you are not surprised about the confusion you create. That wasn't the question that you avoided.

I clearly asked you to please clarify; not to comment on what is or isn't a surprise to you.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-25-2006, 06:07 PM
I'm sure you are not surprised about the confusion you create. That wasn't the question that you avoided. I clearly asked you to please clarify; not to comment on what is or isn't a surprise to you.Funny, as the Confused one was/is you.....

Right here...
(SNIP) I can not understand the meaning of your response (SNoP)
Probably cause you don't speak/read English to well, right?

Your 'fishing' for someone to talk to, lonely little POOPERS try making some real friends with real people right where you live....or do they already know you well enough that that is precluded...

Don't answer, and you don't seem to take that instruction to well ...either.

(I)'ve NO obligation to respond to ANY of the POOP you post, cleaned up enough of that stuff with/for those horses ....years ago.

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 06:36 PM
Funny, as the Confused one was/is you.....
...Probably cause you don't speak/read English to well, right?You do confuse me. As to why I'm confused; the Viewer will have to judge that. However, I am wondering why you refuse to clarify???

Your 'fishing' for someone to talk to...If such is the situation, I have certainly come up with a "cropper."

(I)'ve NO obligation to respond to ANY of the POOP you post, cleaned up enough of that stuff with/for those horses ....years ago.You certainly are not under any obligation to reply to anything. If you didn't reply so often, I would have much more time to answer e-mails from those who are actually interested in alternative concepts to possibly explain the enigmas that academic physics creates faster than they can rationalize the older enigmas that they have created with their illogical reasoning concerning the Big Bang, etc.

Do you have any intellectual curiosity concerning possible rationalizations to what you may not understand in your environment?

Epsilon=One
07-25-2006, 06:48 PM
Your definition of Infinity is *Spurious* *Specious* *Fallacious* Illogic.Sorry, I, apparently, was mislead by the meaning of your: "No."

Now that you have changed your mind regarding my questions to you concerning infinity . . . and have disdain for mine, what is your definition? How does it differ from my definition? Is your definition a limit? Is the infinitesimal considered anywhere in your definition?

If you disagree with my concepts of the infinite, let's debate the precise differences between your definition and mine.

....and NO! (I) will not 'elaborate' on that, as anyone who can read (other then you) could/can figure it out.The only thing that seems apparent is that you have no cohesive concepts to elaborate. At least I can't find where they are succinctly stated.

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-26-2006, 01:46 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Hey it's
POOPERS!

Huh? What??

(Is that you 'server'?)

HallsofIvy
03-28-2007, 11:34 AM
A plague on both your houses!

Epsilon=One
03-29-2007, 02:26 AM
A plague on both your houses!And, I suppose it can't really be argued that such is not well deserved!

NeForZet
10-17-2009, 05:09 PM
Rains on your day a little when a 9 year old is better organised and gives more of a toss than most of the gay community you know, and have seen in action both IRL and online, what a great kid.