Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662360 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 05:24 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:55 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 22:38 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 10:46 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:29 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:37 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:02 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:12 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:39 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:50 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:39 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:57 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 22:58 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-13 12:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-14 01:13 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:50 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Dwaine Hajdú <edajay@njwnwindj.hu> - 2025-04-09 17:29 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 09:20 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-10 11:33 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Arius Babaskin Rui <bnk@aab.ru> - 2025-04-10 12:46 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 07:19 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 19:52 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Douglas Laterza <ou@oodssaa.it> - 2025-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-12 10:48 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Bobbie Bakhvalov <ab@vibh.ru> - 2025-04-12 10:39 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:11 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 01:07 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-14 05:58 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:54 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 09:31 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 22:21 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Edel Baburoff <obbeub@aerb.ru> - 2025-04-13 10:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Corbin Yuan Xiong <nb@rya.cn> - 2025-04-12 10:52 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 08:38 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 09:13 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-12 22:37 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:24 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-09 15:21 +0100
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:44 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2025-04-11 20:16 +0100
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 07:35 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:59 -0700
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:08 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:39 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 03:04 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:49 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:08 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:27 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:53 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 06:29 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:24 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 02:52 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:45 -0500
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 12:05 +0000
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:27 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 21:22 +0200
Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vGCdnQua1Yh7FWf6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662665 |
On 04/12/2025 01:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza: >> J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not >>>> called 'Körper'. >> >> of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. >> >>>> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >>>> connotation in German. >>> >>> So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. > > Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk. > > I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the > physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than > engineers do. > > To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds > like a synonym for 'sex'. > ... > > > TH It's a usual conceit to intercourse then that moving bodies or extended bodies are about the particle conceit, points geometrically or atoms, as with regards to the individua of continua, about why extended bodies are any different than points, and about why moving bodies are any different from points and extended bodies, then in real analytical areas, about the differential and the infinitesimal, the infinities of the continuous. So, it's for a study of motion itself, vis-a-vis rest itself, and also of their moments, with regards to time, and the passage of time. Then, with regards to things like unstoppable forces and immovable objects, that gets into all the notions of change and state, at all. With things like the infinitely-many non-zero higher orders of acceleration, and that the kinematics is always nominally un-linear, about "Zeno and the zero-eth laws of motion", then for example there are the usual formalisms of electrostatics and electrodynamics, yet already that's bound up in the Lagrangian severe abstraction, when underneath there remains a necessary deconstructive account, of the objects of mathematics the objects of physics. So, for particles and positions, and about how they arrive _at_ as well as arrive _from_, moving bodies and extended bodies, wave mechanics, say, about state and change, has that the usual classical linear inductive account is sort of a half-account, that then down from resonance theory is both "particle/wave" duality and, "wave/particle" duality. It works out then to be a potentialistic theory, it's the best theory. That requires a greater, fuller, wider dialectic than the usual subjective, one-sided, inductive half-account. Then it also builds those, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <-w2dnaCYMe6ADGf6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662670 |
On 04/12/2025 08:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/12/2025 01:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza: >>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not >>>>> called 'Körper'. >>> >>> of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. >>> >>>>> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >>>>> connotation in German. >>>> >>>> So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. >> >> Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists >> talk. >> >> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the >> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than >> engineers do. >> >> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds >> like a synonym for 'sex'. >> ... >> >> >> TH > > It's a usual conceit to intercourse then that moving bodies or extended > bodies are about the particle conceit, points geometrically or atoms, > as with regards to the individua of continua, about why extended bodies > are any different than points, and about why moving bodies are any > different from points and extended bodies, then in real analytical > areas, about the differential and the infinitesimal, the infinities > of the continuous. > > So, it's for a study of motion itself, vis-a-vis rest itself, and also > of their moments, with regards to time, and the passage of time. > > Then, with regards to things like unstoppable forces and immovable > objects, that gets into all the notions of change and state, at all. > > With things like the infinitely-many non-zero higher orders of > acceleration, and that the kinematics is always nominally un-linear, > about "Zeno and the zero-eth laws of motion", then for example > there are the usual formalisms of electrostatics and electrodynamics, > yet already that's bound up in the Lagrangian severe abstraction, > when underneath there remains a necessary deconstructive account, > of the objects of mathematics the objects of physics. > > So, for particles and positions, and about how they arrive _at_ > as well as arrive _from_, moving bodies and extended bodies, > wave mechanics, say, about state and change, has that the usual > classical linear inductive account is sort of a half-account, > that then down from resonance theory is both "particle/wave" duality > and, "wave/particle" duality. > > > It works out then to be a potentialistic theory, it's the best theory. > > That requires a greater, fuller, wider dialectic than the usual > subjective, one-sided, inductive half-account. Then it also > builds those, though. > > > > > Koerpers (Koerperen, bodies, corpi) is also an archaic term for abstract algebra's field, where field is quite overloaded in both mathematics and physics, in mathematics simply the rational field according to "usual" arithmetic, in physics the continuous manifold and all geometry, the setting of forces in field theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 22:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <67facf19$0$12914$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #662665 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza: > > J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >>> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not > >>> called 'Körper'. > > > > of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. > > > >>> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange > >>> connotation in German. > >> > >> So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. > > Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk. Yet you pretend to understand physics. > I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the > physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than > engineers do. > > To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds > like a synonym for 'sex'. Yes, complete incompetence, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 09:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m6173uFfdkbU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #662675 |
Am Samstag000012, 12.04.2025 um 22:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza: >>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>> But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not >>>>> called 'Körper'. >>> >>> of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers. >>> >>>>> The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange >>>>> connotation in German. >>>> >>>> So you are incompetent in scientific German as well. >> >> Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk. > > Yet you pretend to understand physics. Actually physics and engineering are quite related topics. I had also experience in (organic) chemistry, mathematics and electronics. Especially chemistry is quite related to some concept in physics, because chemists also deal with atoms and particles. Therefore, I came in contact with the Schroedinger equations at a very young age. Also electronics has connections to physics, especially in semi-conductors. The rest is a hobby, which I had for a number of decades. > >> I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the >> physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than >> engineers do. >> >> To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds >> like a synonym for 'sex'. > > Yes, complete incompetence, No! I was looking for a 'bad' interpretation of the title and asked the question, whether or not that could be meant as an insult. This would be possible, if those moving bodies were human. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt98si$10vnp$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662593 |
On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. > > > > Jan How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the means to check it? That "title" hanging there on the wall must be the culprit. You are controlled by it. Take one little step outside the prison it placed you in, and you'll get toast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1raliki.1rq7jfm5jomqoN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #662616 |
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the > means to check it? Ockham told me. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <RpudnVckvYBgr2X6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662618 |
On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jan >> >> >> >> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the >> means to check it? > > Ockham told me. > > Jan > > Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't. Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school, though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts. Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhXbcQjTHQ0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=21
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | x <x@x.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vt9fs9$3up5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662620 |
On 4/10/25 14:06, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jan >>> >>> >>> >>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the >>> means to check it? >> >> Ockham told me. >> >> Jan >> >> > > Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more > falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't. > > Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school, > though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts. > > > Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says? You know if words do not have meaning than the words 'true' or 'false' do not have meaning. Do 'true' ideas have any greater value than 'false' ideas? Well if those words are meaningless then maybe not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18352c8d6edfd424$295013$1498207$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #662622 |
On 4/11/2025 12:14 AM, x wrote: > On 4/10/25 14:06, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/10/2025 01:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the >>>> means to check it? >>> >>> Ockham told me. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >> >> Neither "Gaia Hypothesis" nor "Dumb Rock" are any more >> falsifiable than "Big Bang" or "Steady State", which aren't. >> >> Ockhamites are by no means the prevalent school, >> though, it's popular with shallow inconstant sorts. >> >> >> Do you, uh, believe everything Ockham says? > > You know if words do not have meaning than the > words 'true' or 'false' do not have meaning. > > Do 'true' ideas have any greater value than > 'false' ideas? Well if those words are meaningless > then maybe not. As a general rule "true" is a stamp assigned by the society to ideas of value to allow them to cruise and "false" is a stamp assigned to ideas of negative value to block them. Distinguishing, however, is not easy and mistakes often happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10243c3a11aad2e133e4789aa61af81f@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #662637 |
Truth is of a two fold nature - subjective and objective. Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof Bertietaylor "The fancy cannot cheat so well, As she is famed to do, deceiving elf." John Keats --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vt9nv0$11719$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662618 |
On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jan >> >> >> >> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the >> means to check it? > > Ockham told me. > > Jan > > Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of recommendation himself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1rameav.1lxbkuams4pn8N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #662624 |
Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Jan > >> > >> > >> > >> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the > >> means to check it? > > > > Ockham told me. > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of > recommendation himself? That is not the simplest explanation. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <suqcncWrAZxcr2T6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662646 |
On 04/11/2025 06:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the
>>>> means to check it?
>>>
>>> Ockham told me.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of
>> recommendation himself?
>
> That is not the simplest explanation.
>
> Jan
>
The simplest explanation is none, yet, then that's
no explanation. How does explanation not exist?
Why does the universe go to all the bother of explaining?
There's quite a significant amount of data to explain.
"Parsimony" may simply be taking the inner product,
then as with regards to the uniqueness of the result,
is a matter of wider concerns.
So, parsimony can readily arrive at that parsimony
is merely slant on the bias, or, parsimony by definition
is merely partial.
Nature's frugality of a sort or for least-action or
for Maupertuis and other definitions what makes least-action,
for example whether it's any old gradient the partial derivative,
"simple", or the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least-action
the least-gradient of the cosmic clockworks, that being,
"simple", or instead you can just explain that you can
ask your phone for delivery since an apple fell on Newton's head ("stupid").
Of course that's a contrived example that most would
say would be too simple to the point of being ignorant
and in terms of the wider milieu, incompetent.
Yeah the simplest, ..., is, none.
Then with regards to theories of evolution applying to
anything, and everything, then gets introduced, for example,
the data of all the theory about it there ever was.
So, "why are we here" can have "Ockham doesn't say".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p9ycne8g2-6_pmT6nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662648 |
On 04/11/2025 08:17 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/11/2025 06:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having
>>>>> the
>>>>> means to check it?
>>>>
>>>> Ockham told me.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of
>>> recommendation himself?
>>
>> That is not the simplest explanation.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> The simplest explanation is none, yet, then that's
> no explanation. How does explanation not exist?
>
> Why does the universe go to all the bother of explaining?
>
> There's quite a significant amount of data to explain.
>
>
> "Parsimony" may simply be taking the inner product,
> then as with regards to the uniqueness of the result,
> is a matter of wider concerns.
>
>
> So, parsimony can readily arrive at that parsimony
> is merely slant on the bias, or, parsimony by definition
> is merely partial.
>
> Nature's frugality of a sort or for least-action or
> for Maupertuis and other definitions what makes least-action,
> for example whether it's any old gradient the partial derivative,
> "simple", or the sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials with least-action
> the least-gradient of the cosmic clockworks, that being,
> "simple", or instead you can just explain that you can
> ask your phone for delivery since an apple fell on Newton's head
> ("stupid").
>
>
> Of course that's a contrived example that most would
> say would be too simple to the point of being ignorant
> and in terms of the wider milieu, incompetent.
>
>
>
> Yeah the simplest, ..., is, none.
>
>
> Then with regards to theories of evolution applying to
> anything, and everything, then gets introduced, for example,
> the data of all the theory about it there ever was.
>
>
> So, "why are we here" can have "Ockham doesn't say".
>
>
>
The "nominalism" makes it easy to pick up and put down
theories without much of an ontological commitment to
an ontological status, yet that's not much of an ontological
commitment to an ontological status.
When it's eliminated that over-simplistic theories
can explain theory like physics, then it must be
not an over-simple theory.
When anyone can arrive at scientific principles,
they sort of make sense.
These days there is a more of a resurgence of
"realism", not nominalism, besides "platonism",
not nominalism, and realist platonists can have
theories of science just fine.
That's not much promoting prevarication and equivocation,
univocation in a sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vtbhju$1217l$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662646 |
On 4/11/25 8:44 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/10/25 3:32 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/10/25 2:20 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Universe is not an evolved biologcal system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know that? How can one state that as fact without having the >>>> means to check it? >>> >>> Ockham told me. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Hmm.. Ockham didn't tell you Einstein wrote that letter of >> recommendation himself? > > That is not the simplest explanation. > > Jan > For an objective person it is. For a Priest-like person, it isn't. Priests carry their crosses on their chests, collectivistic scientists like you place their titles on their walls. And they both in effect kiss those things every now and then. It's a certain bizarre affair; a master-servant relationship :) You tend to forget that the physics community even in 1921 didn't yet believe the GR tests were any proof of Einstein's work. They generally looked at GR as some sort of absurd hypothesis. That's how Nobel went for some much less important work of his. Physics community found Einstein to be what that letter described only years after 1921. Don't try to assume credit for physicists of those days where they didn't have it. It won't work with Physfit's dick. In 1911, nobody gave a serious damn about Einstein, and that letter has more to say than just that. Nobody _knew_ Einstein's features that well, until decades later. The letter is how Einstein described himself. Doesn't matter which friend of his signed it, which amounts to doing what an essentially Bozo does for a friend. But I'm repeating myself, and when I do that, my longtime usenet experience tells me I'm not talking to an objective person. I cannot put sense into a Priest's head. I just dump him and go on. Another much more famous example of such fraudulent claim of credit by physicists of those times was the matter of black body radiation, calling the experimental results a "Catastrophe". As if any of them really believed the results to be true. These little fraudsteres, complete with their titles, of course at the time of those experiments were 100% confident something had gone wrong with the experiments giving that ridiculous bell shaped result. But these same suckers some years later pretended to the world that they had immediately grasped the significance of those experiments as soon as results were out. Trying to credit themselves with a credit that they didn't have!.. As lately as in 1980s, still texts like Eisberg referred to those results as "the ultraviolet catastrophe". I have not checked the physics books since and do not know whether this sham, this Priestly fraud, is still ongoing. In short, when you confront Physfit's dick, walk carefully. Talk carefully. Think carefully. Individuals like you hide from Physfit's dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vspc8n$paai$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662360 |
On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Stephen Hawking once asked: > > Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? > > If Stephen Hawking would like an answer > to that question, has he ever consider > asking a woman that question? > > I don't mean a woman scientist.. > > i mean, just any woman. > > Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is > entitled to know the answer? > > > Is he Moses? > If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IiqdnXWB2r3IqG36nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662385 |
On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Stephen Hawking once asked: >> >> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? >> >> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer >> to that question, has he ever consider >> asking a woman that question? >> >> I don't mean a woman scientist.. >> >> i mean, just any woman. >> >> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is >> entitled to know the answer? >> >> >> Is he Moses? >> > > > If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the > culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses. > > Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you? Being the authority in these matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vspct5$paai$4@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #662387 |
On 4/4/25 2:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Stephen Hawking once asked: >>> >>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? >>> >>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer >>> to that question, has he ever consider >>> asking a woman that question? >>> >>> I don't mean a woman scientist.. >>> >>> i mean, just any woman. >>> >>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is >>> entitled to know the answer? >>> >>> >>> Is he Moses? >>> >> >> >> If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the >> culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses. >> >> > > Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you? > > Being the authority in these matters. > > I know you miss Kosmanson's journals. I'll quote his latest one later today :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <T06dnfy_nONyp236nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #662388 |
On 04/04/2025 12:45 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/4/25 2:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/04/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Stephen Hawking once asked: >>>> >>>> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? >>>> >>>> If Stephen Hawking would like an answer >>>> to that question, has he ever consider >>>> asking a woman that question? >>>> >>>> I don't mean a woman scientist.. >>>> >>>> i mean, just any woman. >>>> >>>> Where did Stephen Hawking get the idea he is >>>> entitled to know the answer? >>>> >>>> >>>> Is he Moses? >>>> >>> >>> >>> If you're keen to get that answer, the answer is, "Physfit's dick is the >>> culprit, pushing all this forward." Ask Moses. >>> >>> >> >> Shouldn't you be referring to Kosmanson or he to you? >> >> Being the authority in these matters. >> >> > > > I know you miss Kosmanson's journals. I'll quote his latest one later > today :) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMF_-HprkZs&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=10 "Moment and Motion: monism and theory, doubling-waves" I don't ads on my youtube channel so any ads interrupting the gentle remonstrance are unwanted freeloaders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vspdiv$9crt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #662385 |
On 4/4/2025 12:34 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 4/4/25 12:03 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Stephen Hawking once asked: >> >> Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? [...] Perhaps it has no choice because it was simply always there and will be always be there, forever... ;^) Perhaps it was never created because it was just, always there? Yawn. ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web