Paper help.

[theorist-constant12345]

Not so far.


No.
Nothing personal about it.


Every single thread you've started, every single claim you've made has been wrong (and, in the majority of cases, has been shown to be wrong).
In other words you've sabotaged yourself, and have not given anyone ANY reason to hear you out. In fact you've done exactly the opposite.


The portion I've highlighted shows that you haven't got a clue, and don't have a hope in hell of "giving science a hard time".


The highlighted portion above shows this to be a false claim.


If you intend it as science fiction then don't claim otherwise.
Apart from anything else your command of English is deeply flawed and I doubt any reputable publisher would entertain you. It'd cost them too much in proof-reading and correction.

May I point an issue what you are not considering?.

If you were a teacher, then you the most should know that people improve and learn. When you first encountered me, I was trying to explain my ideas, but could never find the correct words, while learning at the same time.
That would make yourself and all those who try to learn people, bad teachers, if the persons had not learnt anything.
You are showing you have no patience to teach, and do not understand learning styles and that people learn differently.
People whom enter forums with ideas are not trolls, they are people who have viewed a video, or read an article and thought to themselves, I wonder......

I can hold a conversation in science, I know what science is saying, I know what the maths represents, I am learning maths.
I thank you, and hope you can re-find your patience, you must have h ad it once to teach.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Ok, so... what do you intend to say in your paper? You still haven't told us. All you've said so far is that you are going to 'crucify', 'deevolve' and 'deconstruct' science, along with proving Einstein wrong and something I didn't understand about reality only existing in people's heads.

That's a hugely ambitious agenda and almost certainly too much for a single paper. You need to narrow your focus, decide on a single more modest point that you want to make, and then argue for it persuasively and well

To be honest, I do not see, looking at things in a really basic formal manner, is ambitious , but more of logical axioms.
I intend to show, by axioms, that the basic value of what we know is pretty much zero.
I will be making notation to dimensions, space time, relativity, gravity, light, black holes, darkness, several constants, and probably a few more .
I will show by diagram model , my first piece of content , showing relativistically, that is a
logical axiom of absoluteness.

It can not be denied 100%, that is the basis that will show my paper to be genuine and accurate.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I aim to show that all set theory is naive set theory.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Does my abstract make any better sense now?

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals. As opposed to naive set theories. This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on absolute axiom truth.
A reality that looks at the true values, that humanity has quantified

 

[Yazata]

The guy is utterly clueless and doesn't learn.
It's the likes of this poster that made me leave a years ago, and the forum has gone down (significantly) while I was away.
The longer he (and certain other posters) are tolerated the more likely it is I'll leave again.

Again, I don't see any problem as long as this kind of stuff is restricted to the alternative fora.

Only if the topic is taken up by others and he stays entirely out of it.
He doesn't know what logic is, what philosophy is, what science is.
He's irrational and seriously deluded as to his own abilities.

Then that would give anyone who does know something about logic, philosophy and science the opportunity to do a little teaching. It might just bounce off this guy's head, but the exchange could be interesting and even instructive for others to read.

 

[Dywyddyr]

May I point an issue what you are not considering?

Another basic error on your part.

then you the most should know that people improve and learn.

Quite.
Most people.
Like I've said: YOU consistently fail to learn.

When you first encountered me, I was trying to explain my ideas, but could never find the correct words, while learning at the same time.

Apart from demonstrably NOT learning you also persistently ignored explanations, kept repeating false claims, and invented excuses.

That would make yourself and all those who try to learn people, bad teachers, if the persons had not learnt anything.

Or it would mean that the student was so bull-headed in thinking he knew what he was doing that he refused to listen what he was being told and ploughed ahead thinking he knew better.
Which is what you have done during the entirety of our acquaintance.

You are showing you have no patience to teach, and do not understand learning styles and that people learn differently.

No, wrong again.
A) I'm not here to teach you.
B) And, as previously noted: You. Do. Not. Learn.

People whom enter forums with ideas are not trolls, they are people who have viewed a video, or read an article and thought to themselves, I wonder......

Yup, and most take note of what's said to them, rather than insisting that they are right.

I can hold a conversation in science

No you f*cking can't.

I know what science is saying

No you f*cking don't. As shown by your earlier comment about time dilation being garbage.

I know what the maths represents

No you f*cking don't.

I thank you, and hope you can re-find your patience, you must have h ad it once to teach.

I had students who weren't so ignorant that they thought they were right regardless of how often they were shown to wrong.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Another basic error on your part.


Quite.
Most people.
Like I've said: YOU consistently fail to learn.


Apart from demonstrably NOT learning you also persistently ignored explanations, kept repeating false claims, and invented excuses.


Or it would mean that the student was so bull-headed in thinking he knew what he was doing that he refused to listen what he was being told and ploughed ahead thinking he knew better.
Which is what you have done during the entirety of our acquaintance.


No, wrong again.
A) I'm not here to teach you.
B) And, as previously noted: You. Do. Not. Learn.


Yup, and most take note of what's said to them, rather than insisting that they are right.


No you f*cking can't.


No you f*cking don't. As shown by your earlier comment about time dilation being garbage.


No you f*cking don't.


I had students who weren't so ignorant that they thought they were right regardless of how often they were shown to wrong.

Ok, I personally challenge my understanding against yours and request the mods to move this to alternative or bickering section.
I also declare this paper to be an alternative theory that will prove 100% that science is an invention, and mostly made to fit .
I will show that spacial dimensions are nothing more than 3 lines on a blackboard.
I will also show and work out how to upload the diagram, that dark is time, endless with no beginning. I will show that time and space is dark, and that we travel through time and space , illuminating the way.
I will show we are within a constant, I will show that the constant of c , makes another constant of spacial emptiness, that we see through.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I will open my logical argument on a relativistic look at a train.

In this train there is light and zero G, also it is a vacuum, outside this train is darkness, also a vacuum, darkness is time and is endless with no beginning.
In this train is you, suspended in zero G.
The train is of infinite length, but is moving through the space time of darkness with you.

To draw this model, simply fill in the screen with black, and draw a white stripe horizontal , adding a cube at the central point of the white stripe.
Then add direction tags for the stripes movement and the cubes movement through time.
Tag the darkness, space time=0.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I will open my logical argument on a relativistic look at a train.
In this train there is light and zero G, also it is a vacuum, outside this train is darkness, also a vacuum, darkness is time and is endless with no beginning.

"Darkness is time" - unsupported claim.

In this train is you, suspended in zero G.
The train is of infinite length, but is moving through the space time of darkness with you.

"Space time is darkness" - unsupported claim.

You stated "relativistic look at a train": what is the train moving relative to?

To draw this model, simply fill in the screen with black, and draw a white stripe horizontal , adding a cube at the central point of the white stripe.

If the stripe is the train, and of infinite length then what do YOU call the centre?
ANY point on an infinitely long line is central.

Then add direction tags for the stripes movement and the cubes movement through time.

Things (at least macroscopic things) only move forwards through time.

Tag the darkness, space time=0.

Meaningless.

So, given that you've made two unsupported claims, at least two inane claims and concluded with a meaningless phrase where is the "logical argument"?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

"Darkness is time" - unsupported claim.


"Space time is darkness" - unsupported claim.

You stated "relativistic look at a train": what is the train moving relative to?


If the stripe is the train, and of infinite length then what do YOU call the centre?
ANY point on an infinitely long line is central.


Things (at least macroscopic things) only move forwards through time.


Meaningless.

So, given that you've made two unsupported claims, at least two inane claims and concluded with a meaningless phrase where is the "logical argument"?

The center of the stripe is the center of the length you can draw, using bitmap, call it a section of infinite if you like.
If you draw the diagram, you will clearly see the logical axiom involved.
Time can not be counted in the time and space of the darkness. It is only by matter and having light , that ''timing'' can be accounted for.
Therefore showing a logical axiom, light travels through the dark, remove all Em radiation it would be dark to the observer, and timing would be uncountable.
In our visual Universe, to the boundaries we can see, our only logical axiom, can be to perceive after it is dark.
3 dimensional spacial volume, that is empty , time is uncountable, a logical axiom.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The center of the stripe is the center of the length you can draw, using bitmap, call it a section of infinite if you like.

Which isn't what you stated.

If you draw the diagram, you will clearly see the logical axiom involved.

Arrant nonsense.
What, exactly, is this supposed "logical axiom"?

Time can not be counted in the time and space of the darkness. It is only by matter and having light , that ''timing'' can be accounted for.

Unsupported bullshit.

Therefore showing a logical axiom, light travels through the dark, remove all Em radiation it would be dark to the observer, and timing would be uncountable.

Not true.

In our visual Universe, to the boundaries we can see, our only logical axiom, can be perceived as it is dark.

Equally wrong and equally unsupported.

3 dimensional spacial volume, that is empty , time is uncountable, a logical axiom.

If there's nothing BUT empty space then that's true (but nothing whatsoever to do with your "example").
Otherwise, no.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Which isn't what you stated.


Arrant nonsense.
What, exactly, is this supposed "logical axiom"?


Unsupported bullshit.


Not true.


Equally wrong and equally unsupported.


If there's nothing BUT empty space then that's true (but nothing whatsoever to do with your "example").
Otherwise, no.

It is all logical axioms, if you are denying that, then you are not being objective for sure. If you can tell me how you can time - empty, no energy, darkness?, then I lose right now!.

The axiom is , the diagram shows reality, if you can not see, past a boundary, the science suggests the absence of light.
the absence of light is darkness. So until a future date, when we may or not be able to see past the boundaries of traditional time and space, we can only logically presume that past those boundaries it is dark.
If it makes it easier to simplify the diagram, draw a white circle on a black ground, because currently this is what we observe.
It is 100% an axiom of present reality. No lies, just the truth.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is all logical axioms, if you are denying that, then you are not being objective for sure.

Wrong.
There's nothing logical in it; it's unsupported claims.

If you can tell me how you can time - empty, no energy, darkness?, then I lose right now!.

What do you mean "no energy"?
You've already stated that the train is moving.
Darkness does NOT equal "no time" - this is something you've made up and failed to support.
If I shut you in a sealed room with no lights will you cease ageing? I doubt it.

The axiom is , the diagram shows reality, if you can not see, past a boundary, the science suggests the absence of light.

That's NOT an axiom, it's a claim.
An erroneous one.

the absence of light is darkness.

Correct.

So until a future date, when we may or not be able to see past the boundaries of traditional time and space, we can only logically presume that past those boundaries it is dark.

What?

If it makes it easier to simplify the diagram, draw a white circle on a black ground, because currently this is what we observe.

Which doesn't imply - at all - that it's dark past that observable boundary.
In fact, given that we know the universe is expanding, and therefore what was once observable (had we been there to see it) is now outside that boundary the logical (note the correct use of the term here) here is either
A) it's not dark past that boundary (i.e. it's just stuff much like the rest of the universe but too far away for us to see), or,
B) you're positing some sort of mechanism that snuffs out stars once they cross the boundary of what WE can see. How would that work?

It is 100% an axiom of present reality. No lies, just the truth.

It's neither an axiom nor the truth.
But it IS deluded crap.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Wrong.
There's nothing logical in it; it's unsupported claims.


What do you mean "no energy"?
You've already stated that the train is moving.
Darkness does NOT equal "no time" - this is something you've made up and failed to support.
If I shut you in a sealed room with no lights will you cease ageing? I doubt it.


That's NOT an axiom, it's a claim.
An erroneous one.


Correct.


What?


Which doesn't imply - at all - that it's dark past that observable boundary.
In fact, given that we know the universe is expanding, and therefore what was once observable (had we been there to see it) is now outside that boundary the logical (note the correct use of the term here) here is either
A) it's not dark past that boundary (i.e. it's just stuff much like the rest of the universe but too far away for us to see), or,
B) you're positing some sort of mechanism that snuffs out stars once they cross the boundary of what WE can see. How would that work?


It's neither an axiom nor the truth.
But it IS deluded crap.

Correct, if you could travel beyond our boundaries of sight, to a distant red dwarf that had expanded out of our sight, you would indeed see light, and see the same distance again, depending on the magnitude and dimensions of the red dwarf.
However, you are not considering that over distance light intensity weakens from the source. There is boundary of where at a point there is no light , because the observer is at a point where as the intensity from all Dwarf's is to low for humanity observation.
The consideration of night time, and the ambience of light from distance Dwarfs show us this, and this is an axiom.
When the distance stars have all expanding out of our boundaries, it is a logical axiom that it will be pitch black at a natural state without humanities invention and interference by adding light sources.

 

[Dywyddyr]

However, you are not considering that over distance light intensity weakens from the source.

Nothing to do with what you claimed.

There is boundary of where at a point there is no light , because the observer is at a point where as the intensity from all Dwarf's is to low for humanity observation.

What you claimed is that outside of what we can see it is dark.
This is untrue since there are stars past our observational boundary.

The consideration of night time, and the ambience of light from distance Dwarfs show us this, and this is an axiom.

Nope.
You obviously don't know what "axiom" means.

When the distance stars have all expanding out of our boundaries, it is a logical axiom that it will be pitch black at a natural state without humanities invention and interference by adding light sources.

Wrong, simply because, as you have clearly admitted, stars are past that boundary.
Those stars will emit light - whether we can see that light or not - that is there for other objects past that boundary.

I notice you completely ignored my question, so I'll ask again:
If I shut you in a sealed room with no lights will you cease ageing?
Does time stop during the night?

 

[Yazata]

Does my abstract make any better sense now?

Abstract- This paper is to fundamentally break down and formalise science process to its fundamentals.

What kind of 'fundamentals'? If you mean logical fundamentals, philosophers of science have been trying to do that for more than a century. It's a huge subject and almost certainly too large for a single paper. There's already a massive literature on the logic of science and anyone hoping to reshape the whole discipline will need to have a pretty good grasp of what philosophers have already said about it.

I think that you have a lot of studying to do before you even attempt something like this.

As opposed to naive set theories.

That's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment. I don't understand its relevance.

This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning

What does 'transcendent meaning' mean? What is supposedly being transcended?

to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner. By using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality

That suggests that you are also going to be arguing for some kind of constructivist metaphysical idealism that once again is hugely controversal and already has a massive literature.

based on absolute axiom truth.

People have been looking for absolute axioms since the time of the ancient Greeks, without notable success. Are you suggesting that you have discovered such a set? Making that claim plausible is, once again, probably going to require more than a single paper.

And what's more, the word 'axiom' suggests a Euclidean-style deductive scheme. Are you proposing to construct such a scheme? If so, what are you going to deduce from it? The logical 'fundamentals' of science? (Good luck, I don't think that it's possible.) Or even more grandly, 'true reality' itself? (I'm even more doubtful about that.)

A reality that looks at the true values, that humanity has quantified

Another sentence fragment that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Bottom line: What you seem to be proposing to do (it isn't clear) is more than any other philosopher has done in something like 2,500 years. And what's more, you are proposing to do all of it within the confines of a single paper. My reaction to that is that it isn't credible.

My suggestions:

1. Study some philosophy. Read an introductory philosophy text, then get into the history of philosophy and the philosophy of science. In order to do the philosophy of science well, at a professional level, you will need to understand the science that's under discussion very well. That will probably mean at least an undergraduate level familiarity with it.

2. Hold off on writing your paper until you have a better idea of what the issues are, what the reasoning is, and what others have already written about all of it.

3. When you do write your paper... focus. Don't try to solve every philosophical problem in a single shot. Identify one issue that you can address in the scope of a paper's length. Then make your point as clearly and as persuasively as you possibly can.

4. Try to be less iconoclastic. Don't start out by telling everyone that you are going to 'crucify' science and prove Einstein wrong. That kind of rhetoric will just make other people think that you are a crank.

5. Think about taking a basic expository writing class.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Nothing to do with what you claimed.


What you claimed is that outside of what we can see it is dark.
This is untrue since there are stars past our observational boundary.


Nope.
You obviously don't know what "axiom" means.


Wrong, simply because, as you have clearly admitted, stars are past that boundary.
Those stars will emit light - whether we can see that light or not - that is there for other objects past that boundary.

I notice you completely ignored my question, so I'll ask again:
If I shut you in a sealed room with no lights will you cease ageing?
Does time stop during the night?

If you are in a dark room, will you cease ageing, no , of cause not. That however was not what I stated, if you are in that space , then the space is not empty. You are presuming that there is stars past our boundary, is there evidence of this?.
I really think you missed the point, consider when all the stars are gone, in the shadow of the earth it will be dark, it will be always dark. Consider then if we started to expand from the Sun, at the same velocity the other stars expanding and left, so we never caught them up.
Eventually undeniable it would go dark, the more distance travelled , until eventually pitch black.
This is an axiom, it shows you that light and dark co-exist at the same time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you are in a dark room, will you cease ageing, no , of cause not.

Which shows you're wrong.

That however was not what I stated, if you are in that space , then the space is not empty.

What you claimed was:
Time can not be counted in the time and space of the darkness. It is only by matter and having light , that ''timing'' can be accounted for.
You were wrong.

You are presuming that there is stars past our boundary, is there evidence of this?.

I've already told.
Go back and read post #53.
Specifically this bit:
In fact, given that we know the universe is expanding, and therefore what was once observable (had we been there to see it) is now outside that boundary the logical (note the correct use of the term here) here is either
A) it's not dark past that boundary (i.e. it's just stuff much like the rest of the universe but too far away for us to see), or,
B) you're positing some sort of mechanism that snuffs out stars once they cross the boundary of what WE can see. How would that work?

I really think you missed the point, consider when all the stars are gone, in the shadow of the earth it will be dark, it will be always dark.

Nothing to do with what you've claimed.

Consider then if we started to expand from the Sun, at the same velocity the other stars expanding and left, so we never caught them up.

What?

Eventually undeniable it would go dark, the more distance travelled , until eventually pitch black.

What?

This is an axiom, it shows you that light and dark co-exist at the same time.

It's not an axiom because it's not correct.
Darkness is the absence of light.
If light exists it is, by definition, not dark.
It it's dark there is, also by definition, no light.
Rather hard to "co-exist at the same time" when one or the other isn't there.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Which shows you're wrong.


What you claimed was:
Time can not be counted in the time and space of the darkness. It is only by matter and having light , that ''timing'' can be accounted for.
You were wrong.


I've already told.
Go back and read post #53.
Specifically this bit:
In fact, given that we know the universe is expanding, and therefore what was once observable (had we been there to see it) is now outside that boundary the logical (note the correct use of the term here) here is either
A) it's not dark past that boundary (i.e. it's just stuff much like the rest of the universe but too far away for us to see), or,
B) you're positing some sort of mechanism that snuffs out stars once they cross the boundary of what WE can see. How would that work?


Nothing to do with what you've claimed.


What?


What?


It's not an axiom because it's not correct.
Darkness is the absence of light.
If light exists it is, by definition, not dark.
It it's dark there is, also by definition, no light.
Rather hard to "co-exist at the same time" when one or the other isn't there.

I also said 3 dimensional spacial volume, that is empty , time is uncountable,

This is the axiom, and true. time does not, can not, will not, has no means to change in 3 dimensional empty space, showing my diagram to be true and time=0, and showing that everything then is timing in the light that does not change the space time, because space time can never alter.
To the what's?. It is undeniable that if we removed the sun it would be pitch black, showing the relationship of space time to humanities space timing.

##

''Rather hard to "co-exist at the same time" when one or the other isn't there.''

No, you have to be within range of the intensity, it co-exists, think about it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I also said 3 dimensional spacial volume, that is empty , time is uncountable

Uh, no, you didn't.
You stated, directly, in your train is space example that:
Therefore showing a logical axiom, light travels through the dark, remove all Em radiation it would be dark to the observer, and timing would be uncountable.
Which states, quite clearly, that the removal of light means time doesn't exist.

This is the axiom, and true.

It's neither an axiom nor true.

time does not, can not, will not, has no means to change in 3 dimensional empty space, showing my diagram to be true and time=0, and showing that everything then is timing in the light that does not change the space time, because space time can never alter.

Since your "diagram" didn't illustrate empty space then it has nothing to do with what you're claiming.

To the what's?. It is undeniable that if we removed the sun it would be pitch black, showing the relationship of space time to humanities space timing.

Uh no.
It would be dark, but that wouldn't mean that "space time" is involved (in whatever way you mean it [sup]1[/sup]) OR that we'd lose track of time.

1 I don't even want to try guessing what you mean by the phrase "space time" because you have a history of abusing terminology/ being utterly clueless.