Argument regarding physics

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:49 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:https://youtu.be/EfYtMLe7gqI

Isn’t it funny?

I’ll reply more later, player.

…please don’t read any (or please forget all) of my past posts. lol


I can't player, you are spending time and effort on my thread, not yours, this shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand...


Back to the subject players, don't reply if you don't have arguments supporting your idiotic opinions on my thread.



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system.” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:50 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
butimfeeling2022 wrote:
And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?


In short: Shit happens. Duh?


Think about it historically, when shit happens, lies happens.
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:51 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:This is what I’m hearing, BIF:

Practice what you preach.
If your words don’t align with your practice…
…then they are just words…
…and bats fly in… and you become a bat.

Am I an idiot?


Well, you aren't arguing here...the above is an opinion player not an argument.
Here's an argument.


Back to the subject players, don't reply if you don't have arguments supporting your idiotic opinions on my thread.



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system.” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Ichthus77 » Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:14 pm

You call that an argument, BIF? I call that a knee-slapper.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:27 am

Ichthus77 wrote:You call that an argument, BIF? I call that a knee-slapper.



Well, you aren't arguing here...the above is an opinion player not an argument.
Here's an argument.


Back to the subject players, don't reply if you don't have arguments supporting your idiotic opinions on my thread.



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system.” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 11:28 am

Ichthus77 wrote:This is what I’m hearing, BIF:

Practice what you preach.
If your words don’t align with your practice…
…then they are just words…
…and bats fly in… and you become a bat.

Am I an idiot?


yes you are.

Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system.” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Ichthus77 » Fri Mar 25, 2022 2:05 pm

lies
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:46 am

Ichthus77 wrote:lies


You are still an idiot reading and replying to them...
...if at least you spend some time and effort to argue,
you might learn something here...

Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results.
5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system.” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:19 am

Player, the whole is only as real as its least true part.

God-breathed: https://www.gotquestions.org/not-return-void.html
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Player, the whole is only as real as its least true part.

God-breathed: https://www.gotquestions.org/not-return-void.html



Player listen to the song, it is time to be judged.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYicAN5SAo
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:21 pm

I judge it to be beautiful, player :)
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby butimfeeling2022 » Tue Mar 29, 2022 2:10 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:I judge it to be beautiful, player :)


merci, player
butimfeeling2022
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:54 pm

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Meno_ » Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:41 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:This is what I’m hearing, BIF:

Practice what you preach.
If your words don’t align with your practice…
…then they are just words…
…and bats fly in… and you become a bat.

Am I an idiot?




Late blooming here ;


...bats ( out of hell) may actually not really fly: they may be only inventions through an ancient regime's ' evil genius' but pigs do.

I got the slap before or after offering the turned cheek?

robin'shood's idiotevsky
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13270
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Argument regarding physics

Postby Ichthus77 » Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:55 pm

Dorkstoyevsky, more like.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6053
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users