so very easily baffled aren't you?
You're claiming to have a 'theory' which addresses disease, science and everything humans find perplexing. Why someone who has no experience of science and no evidence for any of their claims would claim such a thing
is baffling. The fact I can't grasp the thought processes of someone who is either trolling or losing their grip on reality is not a negative thin
for someone who is repeatedly claiming others to be deliberately dishonest, this is an amazing statement...
Please provide an example where you justify any of your claims with sound logic. Remember how I asked you to show an actual paradox arises with zero? You couldn't. Instead you just asserted it and ignored my correction about the nature of zero within mathematics.
show were you have done so with post number and quote please, as I may have missed it.
Here. You had made assertions about the nature of zero in mathematics, that (-1)+(+1)=0 was a paradox, and I explained how it is sound and even necessary.
are you claiming the logic of the uncertainty principle is invalid? are you nuts.. your boss is going to have a field day...
The uncertainty principles isn't something you came up with, you're just repeating things other people have done. Furthermore, you haven't shown it is a part of your work because you haven't shown it emerges from it. This is a necessary thing in science. You have some 'theory'. You have talked about the uncertainty principle. You have not demonstrated the latter follows from the former. The uncertainty principle is formally derived from base principles within quantum mechanics. You haven't shown any of such things exist within your work. This is therefore actually a demonstration of how you don't provide logic. When Heisenberg published the uncertainty principle he shows how you arrive at it step by step from the base postulates of quantum mechanics, namely non-commuting observables. That was step by step logic. You haven't provided that. Saying "I have presented logical things because I
assert something from the mainstream arises in my work" isn't sound logic. The mainstream work might be logical but if you can't show it follows logically from your assertions then you're making a logically flawed claim and any logic within the mainstream work is
not taken to be a a part of your work.
Can you demonstrate the uncertainty principle follows from your work? Step by step. This will necessitate you doing some mathematics, which you have none of in your work. You also lack the necessary mathematical knowledge and capabilities to even attempt to work with such stuff so you cannot possibly have done the formal derivation within your work, even if by some random chance it does follow from some formalisation of this 'theory' (a formalisation you haven't got either). Your work is a sequence of random assertions you claim are all connected. You do not demonstrate they are connected within the frame of this 'theory'. That is why Prom, myself and others have commented about how you have failed to make your case. Until you can provide such justification/formulation there is no science or logic for us to discuss in regards to your work. Piling assumption on guess on random assertion increases the chances you're just spouting nonsense. The chance three random assertions are connected in a methodical scientific manner is lower than two random assertions. You're into the dozens of random assertions now.
did I see the word "discussion" just now...... provide evidence that you have made the slightest attempt at discussion please as I fail to see any.
See the just provided link. You were asked to present justification and you failed. If you cannot provide justification for assertions nor evidence for your claims the discussion is over before it began.
I know laypersons might look at a pop science book and think that simply listing results is how science should be presented but it isn't. For every result which takes up a page in a pop science book there will be hundreds, even thousands, of papers describing and exploring how to reach that result from previous results. Having an idea "I think A relates to B!" can happen in an instant, a flash of inspiration, but there's still plenty of hard work to do in actually fleshing out how A relates to B, making the relationship precise and providing as much evidence as possible. If you'd ever looked at proper scientific literature you'd see this. Go have a look on
www.arxiv.org. Abstract, introduction and conclusions take up less than 10% of many papers because the most difficult and the most interesting thing is often the step by step path of logic and evidence which goes from the introduction to the conclusions. You, qwc, Farsight, Magneto
et al, none of you do the bit in the middle and without that you have no justification for thinking your conclusions follow from your initial assumptions. Heck, most of the time you don't even say "Here are my postulates", you just rattle off random assertions, one after the other.
Please refer to the OP for all your information requirements.
Your information requirements might be met by the first post but it only serves to show how pitiful your standards of evidence and reason are.
ahh but I do and have.. very much so...
Please provide an example of how your 'theory' allows for a demonstrably accurate model of a phenomenon in the real world. Show it's derivation from base assumptions, step by step.
would you entertain the idea of discussing the "paradox" at the heart of the "uncertainty principle" in the physics and math forum?
There is no paradox. There might be results you find counter intuitive or difficult to understand but that doesn't make them paradoxes.
and then include the "observer effect" in the discourse? Or would you prefer not to allow discussion on things that don't fit in with your agenda?
And what, pray tell, is my 'agenda'? I ask you to provide evidence for your claims. To show your conclusions follow logically from one another. I point out how far your work falls short of meeting even the most basic scientific standards. I point out your assertions of paradoxes are without justification, even relying on misrepresentations of mathematics.
A rational, informed discussion on the uncertainty principle would be fine. Unfortunately I do not think you have the necessary understanding of the uncertainty principle to have a particularly informed discussion. If all you plan to do is make assertions about the existence of supposed paradoxes, which you cannot justify, then that wouldn't be welcome. If you wish to call that an 'agenda' then so be it.
Perhaps you may even like to start a thread on the topic yourself?
No doubt you've got some direction you wish to discussion to do in so I wouldn't be the best person to start such a thread. I'd immediately go into the details of its derivation, which will involve concepts and methods you don't understand. Hence why I find your use of an uncertainty inequality humorous, in that you obviously don't have the mathematical background to grasp how that expression comes about, probably not even grasp the inequality itself, yet you go around saying "Oh there's a paradox!". It's like me opening a book written in Chinese, pointing to a random line and saying "There's a grammatical mistake there".
I, and I am sure others, would be very interested in your erudite views on the physical and material nature of the "uncertainty principle"....and possibly lift your thread start statistics from 55.
Unlike some of the people here, I don't feel the need to start threads to tell people about what science related ideas I think I may have, as you have done with this thread. This forum is for laypersons to ask questions and discuss things, so the questions I have about maths or physics aren't going to get much of a decent response here. For example, any question I might wish ask pertaining to the uncertainty principle is going to be above the level of most people here and thus I ask my work colleagues instead. Of course I could just start threads where, without request, I monologue about some bit of maths or physics but what would be the point? People can read Wikipedia and it would serve little purpose beyond trying to show off and, as I've told you, I don't have that existential requirement..... unlike some people who like to start threads about their work..... *cough* . If someone else wants to know about some area of maths or physics I know about then they can start a thread and I might answer.
I know hacks tend to measure their scientific worth by the number of threads about their 'ideas' they can make but some of us are a little above that.
Any one who has mastery over the blinding effect can induce this upon someone else. Many secret organisations have been using it for years with the ambition to further their ambitions regarding power and control.
Ah yes, secret societies. Tell me, was 9/11 an inside job? Did Osama kill JFK? Was it a secret Space Nazi craft from the planet Niribu which crashed at Roswell?
can you see the rudementary logic displayed in this image?
Yes, the (-1)+(+1)=0 which you've taken from actual mathematics. That's sound logic, derived from the axioms of mathematics through a great deal of work by experts in logic. The rest is noise.
Imagine you are in a court of law and this image is tendered as evidence to support the very subtle nature of psychic interferrance.
I'd expect the judge holds you in contempt for wasting everyone's time. Beyond more assertions about concepts, such as negative numbers and zero, you don't understand can you back up anything you say? I know you might think asking "and what value is missing from the relative zero space part? " is a sort of "Gotcha!" thing if neither Prom nor I answer but it's no more supporting of your case than I asked you to guess how much change I have in my pockets would support my position.