Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

Time is the rate of change of something. The rate of change varies with gravity(

Time is the rate of change of something. The rate of change varies with gravity(density) and velocity(density), and apparently increases in their absence (entropy) but what is the lowest rate of change in the quantum background? And does that rate of change (where we already know that the rate of ‘boil’ in the quantum background is so fast it’s unimaginable) reach a minimum rate of change: a zero point with which to measure all other rates of change as a ratio?

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 18:01:48 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782832257213841408

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782828919386681458

April 23, 2024
We have no reason to believe that existence is not eternal

We have no reason to believe that existence is not eternal.

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 17:54:19 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782830373518397938

Reply addressees: @partymember55

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782828249040539962

April 23, 2024
IS THERE A ZERO POINT OF TIME? (maybe) In the absence of velocity and gravity, y

IS THERE A ZERO POINT OF TIME?
(maybe)
In the absence of velocity and gravity, you’d expect the passage of time reach a “minimum” or “baseline” or “zero-point” rate, just as we see a zero-point energy in the minimum energy of the quantum background.

This idea’s suggested by Minkowski spacetime (in special relativity, describing a flat, four-dimensional spacetime without the presence of gravity).

But the concept of time in quantum mechanics remains a matter of debate. Some theories (Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum gravity), suggest that time’s not fundamental at the quantum scale, but emerges from chaos of the quantum background.

I’m only interested in this question because the you’d think that time would proceed very rapidly at the zero point, and that only gravity and velocity (friction) would slow it down.

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 17:41:58 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782827265266458625

April 23, 2024
I am attempting to explain to you using the common objections (which are on wiki

I am attempting to explain to you using the common objections (which are on wiki, and other places) why EU cannot provide evidence other than narrative just as Einstien’s general relativity cannot explain the apparently influence of the quantum background as other than a narrative of ‘space time’. So as I understand it, (and I have done a study of pseudoscientific theories in physics) and specifically because i’m an epistemologist that works on first principles (foundations), and have done deep work on the scientific method and the problems of systematizing, dominance bias, and the emergence of error, bias, and deceit – including the fictionalisms that result, I am keenly aware of why you are demonstrating the behavior you are, why the EU is an overreach, and what foundations it’s lacking in order to justify your and other’s fascination with it.
This is not because it is entirely false. It’s because it is still lacking sufficient foundation to make a truth claim rather than an explanatory power claim.
And as far as I know there is no one living or dead that understands testifiability as well as I do.

Reply addressees: @controscience

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 17:33:50 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782825220522295296

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782817319032614961

April 23, 2024
Think of it this way, after three possible spatial dimensions, time is the next

Think of it this way, after three possible spatial dimensions, time is the next potential for the release of pressure in time. This is why, I am pretty sure, that there is both a zero point of time as well as one of energy.

The question is, then, given that time passes slowly both in gravity (veolocity) and at velocity regardless of gravity, that the zero point of time might be quite fast.

I am not quite sure what this would mean other than the exchange of velocity(change) into persistence (time) appears to result.

What does that mean for the universe? It percieves itself so to speak as acting very quickly, while complexity within gravity perceives it as very slow?

Reply addressees: @Rasterdingus

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 17:06:40 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782818381940269056

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782813161545936935

April 23, 2024
RE: Triangle: Imagine the three points being anywhere in three dimensional space

RE: Triangle: Imagine the three points being anywhere in three dimensional space, rather than two dimensional space. No matter what you do you still end up with a two dimensional plane in three dimensional space.

Source date (UTC): 2024-04-23 15:49:11 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782798882570699260

Reply addressees: @vertetluisant

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782797193457377692

April 23, 2024
now move the points in 3d space. same effect. they only have to understand their

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

April 23, 2024
Yes it’s physically impossible. Hence why we use triangles as the unit of measur

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

April 23, 2024
(Worth Repeating) Attempting to claim an insufficient theory beyond the limits o

(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

April 23, 2024
No, I understand just fine thanks. That his claims are true in X cases but not i

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

April 23, 2024