Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #265080 > unrolled thread

Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Back to article view | Back to alt.conspiracy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 07:13 +0200
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 04:09 -0500
      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-25 23:47 +0200
        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 21:14 -0500
          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 06:46 +0200
            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 03:57 -0500
              Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-26 21:25 +0200
                Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 04:12 -0500
                  Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 05:16 +0200
                    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 04:17 -0500
                      Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-28 19:10 +0200
                        Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 18:36 -0500
                          Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-02 07:41 +0200
                            Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 04:13 -0500
    Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV ) HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 06:51 -0400

#265080 — Re: Rocky's beliefs ( gave a photo of hypocenter 2 FNV )

Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>
>>
>> Actually yes.
>>
>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29

Quote

"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
magnitude but no direction.."

But how could a undirected entity wiggle???

To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.

According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.

The field is represented with bi-quaternions and those could be 
visualised by a geometric figure called 'star-tetrahedron'.

Now these two tetrahedrons could also be put under stress and that would 
make a scalar unit (mass) wiggle.

This is certainly difficult to understand with conventional physics. But 
actually I have my own and you may read about it here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#265087

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:13:12 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 22.08.2015 13:13, schrieb HVAC:
>> On 8/21/2015 3:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 21.08.2015 14:39, schrieb HVAC:
>>>> On 8/21/2015 1:32 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually yes.
>>>
>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>
>Quote
>
>"..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has 
>magnitude but no direction.."
>
>But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>
>To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>

     So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.

>According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called 
>'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>

     Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

[...]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265163

Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>
>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>
>> Quote
>>
>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>
>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>
>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>
>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>
>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>
>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.

But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
QM:=Quantum Mechanics).

So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).

This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.

I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
GR). To do this I assume a physical entity called 'spacetime' and say, 
that matter is actually 'structures' of this entity (actually: timelike 
stable patterns).

So the concept is called 'structured spacetime'.

The idea is quite simple, but it is VERY counter-intuitive. You only 
need to assume, that a point has a direction. This direction is 
represented by a pointer (vector) and this is 'glued' to the point.

These pointers perform all sort of weird movements, but certain patterns 
emerge, if a certain axis of time is used. These patterns are (according 
to my idea), what QM calls particles (as special form of matter).

The idea is - to the best of my knowledge- my own creative work. There 
are a few similar concepts, like e.g. that of Peter Rowland or Tom 
Bearden.  But actually it's closer to 19th century physics, like that of 
James Clark Maxwell, who initially used quaternions.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

So, spacetime was known for a while and I didn't claim to have invented 
this idea.

I'm also not dishonest, but possible my idea is not very well developed. 
The reason is, that I'm just a hobbyist. And since the real physicists 
didn't like amateurish ideas, I had given up the subject some years ago.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265193

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 23:47:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 25.08.2015 11:09, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> In my opinion the best way to explain the event are such
>>>>>>> 'starwars-like'
>>>>>>> weapons. They are commonly called 'scalar-wave-lasers' or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29
>>>
>>> Quote
>>>
>>> "..in other words a scalar is a physical quantity that only has
>>> magnitude but no direction.."
>>>
>>> But how could a undirected entity wiggle???
>>>
>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>
>>       So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>
>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>
>>       Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>
>
>Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>
>But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity 
>QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>
>So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>
>This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>

     You did a very poor job of it.

>I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of 
>GR). To do this I assume

     Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!

[snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
assumptions.]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265210

Am 26.08.2015 04:14, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>
>>>        So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>>
>>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>>
>>>        Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>
>>
>> Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>>
>> But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity
>> QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>>
>> So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>>
>> This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>>
>
>       You did a very poor job of it.
>
>> I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of
>> GR). To do this I assume
>
>       Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!
>
> [snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
> assumptions.]
>

Your definition of the term 'science' is different to mine.

You apparently refer to certain believes that are commonly called 
'materialism'. Within this context science is 'hard' (material) and done 
by (approved!) scientists.

So you reject immaterial things like ideas.

The other extreme is called 'idealism'. This is more 'immaterial', hence 
would have less problems with ideas.

I personally think, that what is in fact important is quality (as 
universal principle) and that is neither matter nor idea.

Pure materialism is not a very good idea, since it leaves out such 
important questions like direction, amount or e.g. harmony.

If you subtract matter from the behaviour of a system you get to the 
immaterial world, that idealists deal with. This is wrong, too, since - 
obviously - stuff exists.

To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume 
something. And this is actually what I do.

You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself, 
since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY 
unlikely to find one.

And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea 
(assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But 
this is more or less your problem and not mine.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265213

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:46:39 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 26.08.2015 04:14, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>> To understand this, I refer to my own idea called 'structured spacetime'.
>>>>
>>>>        So, as always, you are simply making stuff up.
>>>>
>>>>> According to this concept, there exist some invisible field called
>>>>> 'spacetime' and matter is a structure of/in this quaternion-field.
>>>>
>>>>        Spacetime is a well known concept in physics. To claim it as your
>>>> own is very dishonest. But you are often dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>>
>>> Well, yes, spacetime is known - in the context of SRT and GR.
>>>
>>> But my attempt was, to connect GR to QM (GR:= General Relativity
>>> QM:=Quantum Mechanics).
>>>
>>> So I tried to build something like QM out of spacetime (of GR).
>>>
>>> This is actually possible and that's what I have tried to show.
>>
>>       You did a very poor job of it.
>>
>>> I tried to create particles (what QM deals with) out of spacetime (of
>>> GR). To do this I assume
>>
>>       Once again, assumptions mean NOTHING!
>>
>> [snip the rest since none of it is based on any science, but
>> assumptions.]
>
>Your definition of the term 'science' is different to mine.
>

     Yours is different from everyone's. I know of no one else who
holds the position that assumptions and guesses are to be viewed as
scientific law.

>You apparently refer to certain believes that are commonly called 
>'materialism'. Within this context science is 'hard' (material) and done 
>by (approved!) scientists.
>
>So you reject immaterial things like ideas.
>

     I do no such thing.

>The other extreme is called 'idealism'. This is more 'immaterial', hence 
>would have less problems with ideas.
>
>I personally think, that what is in fact important is quality (as 
>universal principle) and that is neither matter nor idea.
>
>Pure materialism is not a very good idea, since it leaves out such 
>important questions like direction, amount or e.g. harmony.
>
>If you subtract matter from the behaviour of a system you get to the 
>immaterial world, that idealists deal with. This is wrong, too, since - 
>obviously - stuff exists.
>
>To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume 
>something. And this is actually what I do.
>
>You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself, 
>since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY 
>unlikely to find one.
>
>And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea 
>(assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But 
>this is more or less your problem and not mine.

     The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
scientific law.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265268

Am 26.08.2015 10:57, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
...
>>
>> To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume
>> something. And this is actually what I do.
>>
>> You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself,
>> since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY
>> unlikely to find one.
>>
>> And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea
>> (assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But
>> this is more or less your problem and not mine.
>
>       The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
> scientific law.
>

This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.

This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.

E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.

This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks 
like a law of nature.

It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my 
statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.

But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out 
to be wrong, too.

Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen 
one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.

So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law, 
that is a question of debate.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265322

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:25:01 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 26.08.2015 10:57, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>...
>>>
>>> To come to some kind of better method, it is actually useful to assume
>>> something. And this is actually what I do.
>>>
>>> You may rightfully reject my assumptions, but not the process itself,
>>> since without trying to find a solution to a certain problem, it is VERY
>>> unlikely to find one.
>>>
>>> And the outcome of such a process is not 'hard science', but an idea
>>> (assumption, guess). Those you don't like (for unknown reasons). But
>>> this is more or less your problem and not mine.
>>
>>       The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>> scientific law.
>>
>
>This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>
>This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>
>E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>
>This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks 
>like a law of nature.
>
>It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my 
>statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>
>But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out 
>to be wrong, too.
>

     Scientific law is never absolute.

>Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen 
>one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>
>So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law, 
>that is a question of debate.

     A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265435

Am 27.08.2015 11:12, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>        The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>>> scientific law.
>>>
>>
>> This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>>
>> This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>>
>> E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>>
>> This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks
>> like a law of nature.
>>
>> It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my
>> statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>>
>> But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out
>> to be wrong, too.
>>
>
>       Scientific law is never absolute.

???

What do you mean with this statement?

If you don't require a term like 'valid for all...' you have no rule at 
all.

If a law is only valid in - say - 90 % of the cases and invalid in 10%, 
you couldn't call that a law.

There are certain observations, which could be described in a 
statistical way. Such statistics are also 'laws' (of nature).

But I don't like to call that 'law', even if such statistics describe 
certain aspects of nature, since with 'law' you mean something 
universally valid.

>
>> Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen
>> one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>>
>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>> that is a question of debate.
>
>       A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>

Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.

As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you 
disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.

In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The 
FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a 
hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)

Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to 
'theory'.

There are, of course, other ways to understand the process, by what 
scientific laws are created. And from these stem other requirements, 
like about proof or measurements.

But I try to apply the so called 'scientific method' and try to create 
assumptions, that cannot be refuted.

This is difficult, since it is much easier to find something wrong and 
only few assumptions are not. But at least someone should try to find 
these few solutions. Once you have one, this is presented in the form of 
a universal law. And it will remain universally valid, until someone is 
able to disprove it.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265451

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:16:33 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 27.08.2015 11:12, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>        The problem is that you present your guesses and assumptions as
>>>> scientific law.
>>>
>>> This is so, because that's the correct form of a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> This form does not make it a law, even if it looks like that.
>>>
>>> E.g. I create the 'law', that all swans are white.
>>>
>>> This is a valid statement, but it's obviously wrong, even if it looks
>>> like a law of nature.
>>>
>>> It is falsified by the appearance of a black swan. And so I modify my
>>> statement and claim, that all swans are either black or white.
>>>
>>> But then someone says, that green swans exist and this 'law' turns out
>>> to be wrong, too.
>>
>>       Scientific law is never absolute.
>
>???
>
>What do you mean with this statement?
>

     Exactly what I state.

>If you don't require a term like 'valid for all...' you have no rule at 
>all.
>
>If a law is only valid in - say - 90 % of the cases and invalid in 10%, 
>you couldn't call that a law.

     If you had any background in science, you would know any
scientific law can be changed when the evidence warrants it.
     Now I understand why you know so very little of physics. You have
no education in science.

>
>There are certain observations, which could be described in a 
>statistical way. Such statistics are also 'laws' (of nature).
>
>But I don't like to call that 'law', even if such statistics describe 
>certain aspects of nature, since with 'law' you mean something 
>universally valid.
>

     Not in scientific study. 

>>> Only, we don't know, if green swans exist, since nobody has ever seen
>>> one. But this does mean, that no such swans exist somewhere.
>>>
>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>> that is a question of debate.
>>
>>       A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>
>Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>

     I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
own.

>As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you 
>disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>

     You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.

>In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The 
>FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a 
>hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>
>Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to 
>'theory'.
>

     If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.

>There are, of course, other ways to understand the process, by what 
>scientific laws are created. And from these stem other requirements, 
>like about proof or measurements.
>
>But I try to apply the so called 'scientific method' and try to create 
>assumptions, that cannot be refuted.
>

     So any assumption you make is instantly a law?
     In the real world, it doesn't work this way.

>This is difficult, since it is much easier to find something wrong and 
>only few assumptions are not. 

     As of the time I write this, every assumption you've offered has
been proved wrong.

>But at least someone should try to find 
>these few solutions. Once you have one, this is presented in the form of 
>a universal law. And it will remain universally valid, until someone is 
>able to disprove it.

     This is in direct opposition to your claim above.
     Pick a lane.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265477

Am 28.08.2015 11:17, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
.
.
>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>
>>>        A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>
>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>
>
>       I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
> own.
>
>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>
>
>       You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>
>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>
>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>> 'theory'.
>>
>
>       If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.


In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you 
call 'law'.

What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
about how things behave in certain circumstances.

Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
know, if these laws are actually valid universal.

Instead he assumes a system, where a hypothesis is build, which should 
describe some kind of process.

This hypothesis has the same form as a theory, only it is still in 
debate. It is actually an assumption (or: guess).

By various means this assumption will be tested. Popper suggest, the 
hypothesis should be tried to be refuted.

If this fails, the hypothesis is promoted to a theory (or 'law, if you 
prefer that).

e.g. have a look at:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265524

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:10:07 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 28.08.2015 11:17, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>.
>.
>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>
>>>>        A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>
>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>
>>       I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>> own.
>>
>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>
>>       You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>
>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>
>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>> 'theory'.
>>
>>       If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>
>
>In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you 
>call 'law'.

     Good for Karl.
     Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?

>
>What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
>about how things behave in certain circumstances.

     I didn't comment about nature.

>
>Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
>know, if these laws are actually valid universal.

     This is why scientific laws are not absolute.

>
>Instead he assumes a system, 

Assumptions mean nothing.

[snip the parts after the assumption]

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266078

Am 29.08.2015 01:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):

>>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>         A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>>
>>>        I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>>> own.
>>>
>>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>>
>>>        You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>>
>>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>>
>>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>>> 'theory'.
>>>
>>>        If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>>
>>
>> In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you
>> call 'law'.
>
>       Good for Karl.
>       Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?
>

Philosophy is not a science of nature, but deals with logic and the 
requirements of science.

So Karl Popper does not investigate natural phenomena, but the way how 
people could come to valid conclusions.

It is more a 'meta-science'.

Karl Popper's methods is not the only one in existence, but is quite 
well developed and in most cases accepted.

So it is possible to refer to what he calls 'scientific method', without 
the burden of proof. It is usually not necessary to justify this method, 
since it is widely accepted practice.

And besides you there are not that many authors, who take it into doubt.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#266083

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:41:19 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 29.08.2015 01:36, schrieb K Wills (Shill #3):
>
>>>>>>> So we see: the hypothesis looks like a law. Whether it is a valid law,
>>>>>>> that is a question of debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         A hypothesis never looks like scientific law. Never.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously we disagree about the terms 'science', 'law' and 'hypothesis'.
>>>>
>>>>        I use the accepted definition, where, as always, you make up your
>>>> own.
>>>>
>>>>> As I refer to what Karl Popper called 'scientific method' and you
>>>>> disagree, you seem to have a different understanding about science.
>>>>
>>>>        You clearly know nothing of the scientific method.
>>>>
>>>>> In my world the form of a hypothesis is that of a scientific law. The
>>>>> FORM is that of a law, even if its validity is still debated. (So: a
>>>>> hypothesis is not a law, even if it looks similar.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the wrong laws are sorted out and what remains is promoted to
>>>>> 'theory'.
>>>>
>>>>        If it's a law, it can't be demoted to theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the logic of Karl Popper the term 'theory' is equivalent to what you
>>> call 'law'.
>>
>>       Good for Karl.
>>       Do you honestly believe philosophy is a real science?
>
>Philosophy is not a science of nature, but deals with logic and the 
>requirements of science.
>

     Since when?

>So Karl Popper does not investigate natural phenomena, but the way how 
>people could come to valid conclusions.
>
>It is more a 'meta-science'.
>

     It is more "not science in any way."

>Karl Popper's methods is not the only one in existence, but is quite 
>well developed and in most cases accepted.
>

     Your cite for this is what?

>So it is possible to refer to what he calls 'scientific method', without 
>the burden of proof. It is usually not necessary to justify this method, 
>since it is widely accepted practice.

     By whom? In reality, please.

>
>And besides you there are not that many authors, who take it into doubt.
>

     That sentence makes no sense.

>>>What you regard as a law (in nature) is something like a proven fact 
>>>about how things behave in certain circumstances.
>>
>>     I didn't comment about nature.
>>

     Thomas?

>>>Such laws do not exist (in the method of Popper), because you cannot 
>>>know, if these laws are actually valid universal.
>>
>>     This is why scientific laws are not absolute.
>>

     Thomas?

>>>Instead he assumes a system, 
>>
>>Assumptions mean nothing.
>>
>>[snip the parts after the assumption]

     Thomas?

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#265093

On 8/25/2015 1:13 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> Do you even know what a scalar is?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually yes.
>>>
>>> But you certainly don't believe, that name stems from me (?)


Hint: Temperature is a scalar.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.conspiracy

csiph-web