Paper help.

[theorist-constant12345]

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.


It's neither an axiom nor true.


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


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.

I have already stated to label space time zero, space time is the darkness in the diagram. the box is inside the lit area. You should have a white stripe on a black foreground. The black foreground should be labelled space time=0. It equals zero because it is empty space. An unaltered constant, empty of light intensity, un-observable.
The whole point of the diagram is to represent that our visual Universe, all the matter, all the massless radiation, travels through the dark, and we travel with it.
To deny what I am saying you would have to deny that light travels. Light travels through what exactly?, the answer dark.
Undeniable to even the most stupidest person.
Shine a laser, in your dark room, what does it travel through?.
You can time the laser, but you can not time the dark. Time still exists in the dark, but at an unchanging zero value. That is logical fact.

''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.''

Timing

 

[theorist-constant12345]

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.



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



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



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.



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.)



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.

Thank you for the advice, and there is only one logical axiom ever to really consider.

It will never ever matter what we think of, because what we think of, is an invention of something, that is only and will always only be relative to us. The only thing that is not constant in the Universe, is our very own actions. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the Universe is destined to her path, we try to make our own path.
By fundamentals, I literally mean breaking science back down to nothing, as if we knew nothing.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I have already stated to label space time zero, space time is the darkness in the diagram.

Just because you decide to label it as such doesn't mean it's correct.
Space-time INCLUDES the train, the passenger and the light.

The black foreground should be labelled space time=0.

Still unsupported crap.

It equals zero because it is empty space.

But it's not "zero". Unless you can LOGICALLY explain why you think so.

The whole point of the diagram is to represent that our visual Universe, all the matter, all the massless radiation, travels through the dark, and we travel with it.

Uh we don't "travel with massless radiation".

To deny what I am saying you would have to deny that light travels.

Nope.

Light travels through what exactly?, the answer dark.

The "dark" is not a thing.
Light travels.
Through various mediums (dark not being one of them) or through a non-medium.

Undeniable to even the most stupidest person.

Wrong.

You can time the laser

So?

but you can not time the dark.

That would be because "dark" isn't a thing.

Time still exists in the dark, but at an unchanging zero value. That is logical fact.

It's neither factual, true nor rational.

Timing

How can there be "time at an unchanging ZERO value"?
What exactly does that little piece of nonsense mean?
If the value is ZERO how can you say time exists?
A value of ZERO means (and this may be difficult for you to comprehend) that there is nothing there. I.e. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

I strongly suspect that you're misapplying this too.

By fundamentals, I literally mean breaking science back down to nothing, as if we knew nothing.

Well YOU appear to have a head start on that...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Just because you decide to label it as such doesn't mean it's correct.
Space-time INCLUDES the train, the passenger and the light.


Still unsupported crap.


But it's not "zero". Unless you can LOGICALLY explain why you think so.


Uh we don't "travel with massless radiation".


Nope.


The "dark" is not a thing.
Light travels.
Through various mediums (dark not being one of them) or through a non-medium.


Wrong.


So?


That would be because "dark" isn't a thing.


It's neither factual, true nor rational.


How can there be "time at an unchanging ZERO value"?
What exactly does that little piece of nonsense mean?
If the value is ZERO how can you say time exists?
A value of ZERO means (and this may be difficult for you to comprehend) that there is nothing there. I.e. IT DOESN'T EXIST!


I strongly suspect that you're misapplying this too.


Well YOU appear to have a head start on that...

''Just because you decide to label it as such doesn't mean it's correct.
Space-time INCLUDES the train, the passenger and the light.''

That is logically incorrect by anybodies logical standard. The ''timing'' of actions in space is how science makes '''predictions''. The light travels through a medium such has air, or a none medium such has space. None medium of space, there is nothing in the none atmospheric partial vacuum, for light to travel through. It travels through nothing, a nothing of darkness, making it illuminated to sight.

equals zero because it is empty space.
''But it's not "zero". Unless you can LOGICALLY explain why you think so.''

It is zero because there is nothing to time, a simple axiom of obviousness. It is only when the emptiness is filled by any light, that it is possible to time.
Example - There is in front of you suspended, a box wire frame with no sides. You can clearly see the empty spacial volume,<except air, with too little of a refraction to alter the light>.
You can measure the dimensions, because we can clearly see and measure the box. We could also time any visual matter , passing through that box.
Now imagine the same experiment in the dark.
In either instance in the dimensional spacial volume if we remove the atmosphere, time still exists but has no value. and never starts or ends. It is only when something enters that spacial dimension, that time then exists and has a timing period value.


but you can not time the dark.
''That would be because "dark" isn't a thing.''

That is like saying that matter can not exist in the dark without light. So what would this thing be called that surrounds matter when there is no light?.

I consider it is more than obvious than if we could put the Sun on a switch, we could make it very dark in the day showing the co-existence.

We turn the switch off for approx 8 minutes, what do we see after 8 minutes?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'd more or less forgotten how truly and utterly ignorant you really are.
Again, all you're doing is making claims, hand waving (in a particularly and inept specious manner) and then stating "it's obvious".
I'm out.

 

[paddoboy]

I'd more or less forgotten how truly and utterly ignorant you really are.
Again, all you're doing is making claims, hand waving (in a particularly and inept specious manner) and then stating "it's obvious".
I'm out.

It's actually bloody amazing that anyone could think that he/she could fool any other reasonably Intelligent human being with the total load of poppycock, gibberish and utter nonsensical sentences in post 64.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

It's actually bloody amazing that anyone could think that he/she could fool any other reasonably Intelligent human being with the total load of poppycock, gibberish and utter nonsensical sentences in post 64.

Which part exactly of the truth is poppy cock exactly?. The truth is my abstract. The reality model is the truth.

I, you, and The Sun, travel through time and space, time and space being of dark , unlit empty space, we move into empty space, we fill it, we move out of empty space, it becomes empty and timeless.
The logic involved you are either not taking serious and not thinking the reality of what I am saying.
I will ask you one question, that hopefully will show you the logic.
If something has an unknown value, and at the present time there is no way we could give it a value, we would have to by logical reasoning give the value of ?. The ? has to represent the value of 0, we have no values, we always have 0, regardless of that there may be unseen values beyond our visual range of the Universe.
Un-observable = zero value?.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Added - Thought experiment.

Place your hands palm up and together, <little finger against little finger.

Left hand is A
Right hand is B.

Both A and B is now a Galaxy, each hand represents the circumference of Illumination that is emitted from a central point of each hand.

A moves left, away from right, what happens in the spacial volume between the masses?.


This time A and B both move apart leaving some mass behind, in the 3 dimensional volume between A and B,

What happens to the left behind mass, has the distance expands?.

P.s- This is a very good forum, I thank the moderators for being normal people and who allow objective talk.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Abstract update considering what you meant by fragmented sentences, thank you for the advice.

Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process, and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based, as opposed to present naive set theories.
A reality that looks at the true values of reality, that humanity has quantified, and showing by logical axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

Is this better?.

 

[origin]

If something has an unknown value, and at the present time there is no way we could give it a value, we would have to by logical reasoning give the value of ?. The ? has to represent the value of 0, we have no values, we always have 0, regardless of that there may be unseen values beyond our visual range of the Universe.

That is completely illogical.
You are saying if we don't know the value of something you will arbitrarily give it a value.
How in the name of all that is holy do you think that is logical? That is more like insanity.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That is completely illogical.
You are saying if we don't know the value of something you will arbitrarily give it a value.
How in the name of all that is holy do you think that is logical? That is more like insanity.

I am saying if you do not know the value of something, because uninhabited and giving an impression of bleak emptiness, then what possible values is there?. The only logical answer is zero. The spacial dimensional desolate volume, has the absolute value of zero. It is a logical axiom because anyone's logic says there is nothing to measure, but time still would exist. Time would be uncountable, a value of zero, never starts and never ends.
Only matter can decay, spacial desolate volume can not decay, there is nothing to decay.

Added- a Galaxy is a rift in time and space, time and space being darkness, light filling the black void of space has we travel through the Universe, and the Universe constant of time and space.

 

[paddoboy]

Which part exactly of the truth is poppy cock exactly?. The truth is my abstract. The reality model is the truth.

No there is no truth. There are only scientific theories that are supported by logic, and observational and experimental data. These theories gain in certainty over time and are sometimes inferred as near factual. A handful of those theories that could be said to be near positive are the BB, SR, GR, Evolution, Abiogenesis.

Your hypothesis is just that. A personal hypothesis that will never gain in any certainty, and will gradually wilt and fade away, when you finally give up pushing your nonsense, as you yourself wilt and fade away.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No there is no truth. There are only scientific theories that are supported by logic, and observational and experimental data. These theories gain in certainty over time and are sometimes inferred as near factual. A handful of those theories that could be said to be near positive are the BB, SR, GR, Evolution, Abiogenesis.

Your hypothesis is just that. A personal hypothesis that will never gain in any certainty, and will gradually wilt and fade away, when you finally give up pushing your nonsense, as you yourself wilt and fade away.

After several years and now getting more comprehensive with my literature, taking the time and effort to learn the maths, do you think I will give up?.


Do you not think , that I not can prove some of my thoughts by simple observation experiments?.

I have a certainty in knowing that the truth is the truth and can never change, it is only lies that can make change.

I am not going anywhere until someone in science actually takes me serious.

Then once they understand or several people get it, then I have done my bit , then I may give up once my ideas are understood to be the truth.

Ok, back to my paper and the now presumed readable abstract.

What comes after an abstract, a content guide?.

 

[origin]

After several years and now getting more comprehensive with my literature, taking the time and effort to learn the maths, do you think I will give up?.

No

Do you not think , that I not can prove some of my thoughts by simple observation experiments?.

No.
By the way it is not necessary or correct to put a period after a question mark.

I am not going anywhere until someone in science actually takes me serious.

No one who understand science is going to take you seriously. Your ideas are illogical and/or demonstrably wrong. Do you think after reading a few articles on medicine you could come up with a better form of brain surgery? Preposterous right? Well it is no more preposterous than you coming up with a new idea in physics.

Then once they understand or several people get it, then I have done my bit , then I may give up once my ideas are understood to be the truth.

Your ideas are not truth, nor are they lies, they are just clearly wrong.

Ok, back to my paper and the now presumed readable abstract.
What comes after an abstract, a content guide?.

Are you kidding me?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No

No.
By the way it is not necessary or correct to put a period after a question mark.

No one who understand science is going to take you seriously. Your ideas are illogical and/or demonstrably wrong. Do you think after reading a few articles on medicine you could come up with a better form of brain surgery? Preposterous right? Well it is no more preposterous than you coming up with a new idea in physics.

Your ideas are not truth, nor are they lies, they are just clearly wrong.

Are you kidding me?

I await your demonstration of measuring time in an empty void? My ideas are not illogical, I can demonstrate my ideas with two flash lights, showing darkness is an observable boundary. I can prove that Light travels through the dark by simple demonstration, and showing time and space co-existence to timing of matter.

You are trying to argue against the truth of logical observed evidential axioms. It is not just Philosophy, it is science observational experiments also, ones that are axioms to reality, and only show the truth.

You are trying to argue that in the Earth's shadow, when the distant stars eventually fade out of perspective range of sight, that the shadow will still have natural ambient light. The Moon may provide some ambience.

I will ask you one question of logic, a question that is an axiom of logic, a question that shows what I am saying to be logically the truth.

The Sun stops emitting Em radiation, what happens after 8 minutes to 3 dimensional space, would it become very dark by any chance?.

 

[paddoboy]

My ideas are not illogical, I can demonstrate my ideas with two flash lights
You are trying to argue against the truth of logical observed evidential axioms.
I will ask you one question of logic, a question that is an axiom of logic, a question that shows what I am saying to be logically the truth.

Oh the pain of it all...I mean I now have a stomach ache after much belly laughing.
You really are so, so delusional, that yes, your case is a lost cause.

 

[AlexG]

Spent months on another forum trying to convince him that a shadow was not a physical object. Never succeeded.

 

[origin]

The Sun stops emitting Em radiation, what happens after 8 minutes to 3 dimensional space, would it become very dark by any chance?.

If the sun were to stop shinning it would be dark, very good.

It is incorrect to put a period after a question mark.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If the sun were to stop shinning it would be dark, very good.

It is incorrect to put a period after a question mark.

So the light travels through? see bold.

Time still exists in the? see bold.

time and space is? see bold.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Spent months on another forum trying to convince him that a shadow was not a physical object. Never succeeded.

You continue to mention a shadow, I never though it was a Physical object with mass, or a Physical presence, I was trying to explain a translucency to sight of shaded areas.