First, read my response to Dominguez above.
Second watch my foundations series:
https://t.co/x5xWzs58hX
Otherwise I’ll be here all day trying to convey enough basics to have a discussion with you. (and I can’t afford to be here all day). lol
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:48:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782798587967004674
now move the points in 3d space. same effect. they only have to understand their direct relationship to others (direction) they DON’T need to understand a derived relationship THROUGH others. I think that’s the best way I can describe it so far. Now, realize I’m speaking in simple terms, but what I’m imagining is pressure spin, polarity, vibration, and movement that try to release that pressure, where only polarity produces decidability.
Reply addressees: @adominguez792
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:43:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782797391965433856
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782796324603113765
It’s partly a utility in maintaining our optimism and absence of fear of failure – leading to our entrepreneurialism, innovation, exploration and creativity.
But yes that’s the case. And it’s largely the case because of our women.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:39:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782796493675475172
Reply addressees: @countryman7gen @ernunnos
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782795500669809144
Yes it’s physically impossible. Hence why we use triangles as the unit of measure, and hence why even in your and my human brain, the world is effectively stored as spatial triangles and ternary logics.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:38:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782796216788451686
Reply addressees: @vertetluisant
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782795748590985409
(Worth Repeating)
Attempting to claim an insufficient theory beyond the limits of it’s explanatory or evidentiary power is in fact pseudoscience. Because what does science mean? The production of testifiable testimony about that which is beyond our intersubjectively verifiable…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:37:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782795834586742962
No, I understand just fine thanks. That his claims are true in X cases but not in Y cases simply demonstrates that the system is incomplete. It’s not that it’s pseudoscience so to speak (as some call it) but it’s certainly a case of ‘it sure looks like applying a rule outside of the limits of it’s explanatory power’.
Attempting to claim an insufficient theory beyond it’s explanatory or evidentiary power is in fact pseudoscience. Because what does science mean? The production of testifiable testimony about that which is beyond our intersubjectively verifiable apprehension.
Look at what I wrote already. Seek to understand. Don’t assume you are correct. Always seek to falsify yourself just as much as. you seek to falsify others. And put falsification ahead of justification in your investment in the potential of a concept.
-Affections.
Reply addressees: @controscience
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:36:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782795621000241152
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782790925833683254
THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS?
1. The universe is discrete – we don’t yet know why other than nothing in the universe is continuous except effects of discreteness. 😉
2. The universe is under pressure – we don’t yet know why.
3. Everything in the universe moves because it is pushed.
4. There are only so many means of releasing pressure: spin, density, vibration, motion, combination, decomposition, and decay.
5. Everything in the universe results from those few principles.
And if I ever figure out how to explain to normies why there are only three spatial dimensions necessary to explain space, other than “there is nowhere to store the information necessary for another dimension” I’m gonna buy myself a cake and celebrate – candles and all. 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:30:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782794128725565440
RE: ELECTRIC UNIVERSE THEORY
Well the universe does not limit itself to one avenue of expression of the influence of state. Instead it uses all of those it can construct by permutation and combination.
The fact that one of those expressions consists of electromagnetism, and that this force must cause a hydrodynamic result in the quantum background, is merely obvious and well understood.
The standing criticisms of the Electric Universe theory are:
1. Lacking a mathematical framework that can make testable predictions.
2. Insufficient explanation of numerous astronomical observations that are well-described by current mainstream models.
3. Claims are inconsistent with established laws of physics and contradict well-tested theories, such as general relativity and quantum mechanics.
4. So it lacks the scientific evidence and rigor to be considered a viable replacement for current mainstream models.
This does not mean that the electromagnetic forces, which we know certainly function in the production of the quantum background and it’s major Casimir and Van der Waals forces.
So you could claim the “Electro Matter” force is the only force and that exists, and that it’s all that’s necessary to explain all resulting forces.
At present this solution is highly likely to be very close to the answer – if the math plays out as well as it has already.
So, the problem with the electric universe theory is that it’s an overreach using a grain of causal truth but failing to produce the science to satisfy it’s claims, even if while not true, it contains enough partial truth to provide explanatory power.
The einstein bohr strategy was in fact as harmful as it was beneficial. And yes it created an impediment to future generations of physicists. But EU is likewise not a construction that survives criticism because it doesn’t provide evidence of causality. So like many theories it has in it a half truth (as did einstein’s). And yes it’s a more classical explanation closer to the truth than einstein’s. But it is not the answer.
I hope this helps you on your journey.
Affections
-CD
Reply addressees: @controscience
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:12:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782789678023761920
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1756126675614707891
Well, I’ll stick with my understanding that Einstein’s folly, like those of almost all Ashkenazi intellectuals is the result of cognitively feminine bias in genetics, a culture that is saturated with that bias, and a cultural strategy(sedition) of rebellion against the masculine,…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 14:51:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782784266939592953
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782783395929678083
MORE VALID EINSTEIN CRITICISM
–“Einstein remade a scientific world which was rich in aether + electron theorists into a taboo-filled scientific establishment that bet everything it had on the weakest force being the universe’s dominant force – an idea which by the 2020’s has firmly dead-ended w dark matter.”– @controscience
Very well said.
You could say Einstein transformed the study of materialist world of the aether(quantum background)and electron (mass, work), into the study of the anti-materials world of space-time and light (massless, work-less), just as other jewish intellectuals transformed European thought from classical mechanical and material to ‘magical’ verbal and imaginary.
Combine this with Cantor-to-Bohr’s Ashkenazi ‘mathiness’ that did the same thing: transforming the material and operational to the imaginary and linguistic.
Though the Einstein industry does not attribute this metaphysical regression into verbal mysticism to the entire suite of Ashkenazi theorists and so the public is unaware of the rebellion against ‘jewish physics, jewish economics, jewish politics, and jewish law’ that occurred at the same time.
Thanks for your thoughts. 😉
-CD
Reply addressees: @controscience @haymanwazzup
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 14:44:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782782567621476352
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782780321458790550