Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #670824

Re: A New Science

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 04/21/2026 03:47 PM, x3 wrote:
> > On 4/21/26 15:32, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >> On 04/21/2026 02:55 PM, x3 wrote:
> >>> On 4/20/26 22:24, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 4/19/2026 3:41 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2026 12:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I invented a New Science.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Take any battery
> >>>>>>>>>> You have a Plus sign +
> >>>>>>>>>> You have a Minus sign -
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On which side is the Minus -?
> >>>>>>>>>> The Left Side or the Right side?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, usually wrt plotting a graph, the negative, say x axis is
> >>>>>>>>> on the
> >>>>>>>>> left of origin. Positive on the right. Positive y is going up,
> >>>>>>>>> the other
> >>>>>>>>> going down. Batteries are labeled, so whatever?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On my AA batteries the minus is the outside :-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On a AA battery the minus - is on if I may say on the ...flatside.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where as the plus side + (as the elevated line shows upwards) is not
> >>>>>>> flat, but slightly raised
> >>>>>>> upwards from flat...elvated, high ranks, blossom like a growing
> >>>>>>> flower...Positive.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Elevated means Positive
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Flat (having no height -) is Negative.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A girl with a FLAT chest...not good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A girl with a higher level of flat is good.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> especailly above normal level.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 36 C PERFECT
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 28 AA is flat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But this isn't about batteries or bras..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's about
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Left.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Good
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bad
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How about ...dogs? Animals?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do dogs have a good side and a bad side?
> >>>>>>> Do dogs have a positive side and a negative side?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which side is a dog's negative side? Answer: The same side as
> >>>>>>> people of
> >>>>>>> course.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When a dog wag's his tail...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> to the left
> >>>>>>> it indicates negative emotions;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When a dog wag's his tail...
> >>>>>>> to the right
> >>>>>>> it indicates positive ones.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (to be continued)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Right side of the brain is...Positive
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The left side is Negative.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nature agrees with me,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That Positive is on the Right and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Negative is on the Left.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Angel/Devil
> >>>>>> Good/Bad
> >>>>>> Positive/Negative
> >>>>>> Right/Left
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +/-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It agrees with Nature.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you...Right handed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or do your criminals friends call you ...Lefty?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about the ambidextrous? ;^)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is about Positive being on the Right side and
> >>>>
> >>>> Negative being on the Left side.
> >>>>
> >>>> ambidextrous people STILL have a right side and a left side.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Science Today and yesterday say there is no right/left to + and -
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm saying I invented/discovered that Right is Positive, and Left is
> >>>> negative.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> For example:
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have an angel and a devil on your shoulders...which shoulder is
> >>>> the devil on???? Right or Left?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A 3 year old can answer that question correctly by now...
> >>>>
> >>>> (not the 'scientific community)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (to be continued)
> >>>
> >>> The right side of the brain has to do with graphical processing
> >>> and vision.  The left side of the brain has to do with sound.
> >>>
> >>> This is of course because the lateral sulcus or Sylvian fissure
> >>> is different on the left side of the brain in comparison with
> >>> the right side of the brain.
> >>>
> >>> Now vision does go to both sides of the brain as well as sound,
> >>> and since motor output tends to go down the ventral side of
> >>> the nervous system and sensory input tends to go up the dorsal
> >>> side of the nervous system, the output to the mouth and larynx
> >>> goes out the lateral side and the hands or leg output tends to
> >>> be toward the medial side.  As a reminder, if you can not see
> >>> out of the left or right side of both eyes, you might be having
> >>> a stroke on one or the other side of the occipital lobe in
> >>> the brain.  Nonetheless if you close or open one eye or the
> >>> other and the problem is different depending on what eye
> >>> you are looking out of, that tends to be a problem with one
> >>> of your eyes.
> >>>
> >>> As a reminder there are different coordinate or measurement
> >>> systems in different fields.  The spherical coordinate system
> >>> is cool for quantum mechanics, but there are also names for
> >>> different directions in anatomy with respect to the body,
> >>> often described using speech sounds in various languages
> >>> and not say, symbols in the Greek alphabet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Vision goes from the eyeballs down the optic nerves past the
> >> optical chiasma, crossing over each other at the optical chiasma,
> >> sitting right around the hypothalamus, back to the rear-brain where it's
> >> processed by the visual cortex, while yet the overall command functions
> >> are in the fore-brain, as what may constantly enjoy the presence or
> >> absence of visual input, and ignore or immerse as seen fit.
> >
> > Yes as mentioned earlier, there is crossover to both sides in
> > the optic chiama, the rear brain you mention is probably
> > the occpital lobe, and there are some white matter (long
> > distance insulated) fibers that go to the motor cortex in
> > the frontal lobe.  The processing of course becomes more
> > and more abstract the farther you get from the actual sensory
> > inputs and motor outputs.  As far as 'ignoring' that could
> > be on an array of differeht levels and locations. As a reminder,
> > there tends to be both inhibitory and excitory receptors
> > for the different nurotransmitters, and they are not only
> > emitted at the axons and xynapses.  Like adrenaline or
> > epinephrine.  It is also emitted by the adrenal glands
> > on top of the kidneys as well as directly at the synapses
> > themselves.
> >
> >> That eyeballs are globular is relevant to both parallax and
> >> "peripheral parallax", has that the optical character of _light_
> >> is _special_, and quite arguably then agreeably _different_
> >> then otherwise "electromagnetic radiation".
> >
> > Yes horses have a greater field of view,  They may not necessarily
> > keep moving there heads this way and that like some birds with more
> > binocular vision.
> >>
> >> That eyeballs are globular, and vision is binocular, is more
> >> involved than merely the stereoscopic and the redundant,
> >> eyeballs are not flat-screens and neither are they usually
> >> independent, as with regards to rods and cones and the
> >> many pigments of the eye, the visual pigments moreso than
> >> the visible pigments.
> >>
> >> The ancient Sumerians divided the sky our view of it into
> >> three sections, since they were well familiar with the
> >> accounts of optical "illusion" about the horizon and looking up.
> >
> > It is difficult to say what they might be familiar with but it
> > might be feasible.
> >>
> >>
> >> In my podcasts I address these things about "light information theory"
> >> and "color theory" and "colorless green" and about "peripheral
> >> parallax", for a "dual-tristimulus colorspace" about the prismatic
> >> and chromatic, for example in "Logos 2000: physics today" are a bunch of
> >> text outputs from online chat systems, in the comments.
> >>
> >> The usual accounts of vision and image, and light rays and waves,
> >> are half-accounts.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's an old science.
> >
> > Yea there is supposed to be that middle kingdom scroll that
> > lamented that everything was done some time back?  Perhaps
> > nothing is new.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> This "Logos 2000: continuum analysis" discusses some of these
> ideas about the light and the mechanics and a modern sort of
> account thereof.
> 
> There's a great book called "The Dictionary of the History
> of Science" circa the 1980's.

did you read "The Dictionary of the History
of the Dictionary"?








-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-18 12:14 -0700
  Re: A New Science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2026-04-18 20:11 +0000
    Re: A New Science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-18 13:55 -0700
    Re: A New Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 14:41 -0700
    Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-18 16:47 -0700
  Re: A New Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 14:40 -0700
    Re: A New Science Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-04-19 06:35 +0000
      Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-19 12:28 -0700
        Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-19 15:41 -0700
          Re: A New Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 14:19 -0700
            Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-20 22:24 -0700
              Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-21 08:20 -0700
              Re: A New Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 11:42 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-21 12:02 -0700
                Re: A New Science "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 12:16 -0700
              Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-21 13:06 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-21 22:21 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-22 11:06 -0700
                Re: A New Science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 11:09 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-23 23:07 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-23 23:18 -0700
                Re: A New Science Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 23:18 -0500
                Re: A New Science Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-05-01 04:21 +0200
                Re: A New Science Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-05-01 04:22 +0200
                Re: A New Science Samuel Spade <sam@spade.invalid> - 2026-04-30 20:44 -0700
              Re: A New Science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-21 14:55 -0700
                Re: A New Science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 15:32 -0700
                Re: A New Science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-21 15:47 -0700
                Re: A New Science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 10:31 -0700
                Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-23 22:49 -0700
                Re: A New Science Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 08:46 -0700
        Re: A New Science Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-04-20 06:41 +0000
      Re: A New Science x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-04-19 13:34 -0700
        Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-23 22:57 -0700
  Re: A New Science The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-04-18 14:41 -0700

csiph-web