Maybe I want to lose contact with others/I want to talk to OTHERS.
What is the matter with you? You are trying to climb so high that you are finally losing contact with the others; you become lonely and that is sad. A sharp falling in the abyss is your destiny.
Working on the problem of the "Ignoratio Elenchi" or "IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION" problem in relation to horseshoe magnets. Frege and Russell, of a school popularly known as the logical positivists identified the set of all sets not members of themselves. Both trembled at the realization. If you do not understand you are not shocked by the thought of it. "Every subject of predication is an identity of denotation in diversity of intention." It then becomes a subject of importance when the consequences of action are overlaid like maps of forces in control at any particular time in history so to avoid repetition of "FOOLISH ACTIONS". Same poles repel and opposite poles attract.
I am sure some event inspired the Mayans to believe the end of the world will happen then. Sounds like somebody ought to take a look at ice cores for evidence of some cataclysmic event that inspired them to believe what they do.
maybe sometime before I turn 59 we should have an end of the old world party? Some wits think 21dec 2012 is it? Don't know? 1844 saw some interesting events with millerates and Hamilton's equations. Like from then we found a parallel universe or something.
Happy New Year, Mike!!!
Mike: Let's change our talk. I invite you to get a little into the I CHING. Remove any idea about it of your head if it’s the case. Don’t prejudge on it. I tell you this as a friend, in confidence.
Space science is just an area. I could just as easily jump to talking about the brain and neuroscience which I have similarly studied for many years and again I would have the same problem. Like talking into an empty room. I first noticed how all alone I was on these forums talking about yoga. Now I don't do that much at all since I know this is equally futile. I must be weird/esoteric. Don't care really.
Don't get me wrong. Tonight I was astounded to discover the new ways element distribution in the universe are used and recently how dark matter and energy as well as sound waves are useful and necessary for the universe observed by science today. There's lots I don't know but that doesn't mean I have to entertain 3'rd grade notions to enlist what I do know as being true by virtue of 3'rd grade acceptance of their truth. I strongly recommend you go to college and get educated on things like astronomy/cosmology/particle physics/nuclear physics. This will lead you to understand what you do not know.
This is more philosophy. Philosophy of science. Believe it or not this is an actual subject taught in universities. When you are in the 3'rd grade you think your questions are pertinent until you get to the 6'th grade and realize why you got so many frowns by older children. You realize your questions about life were not so pertinent because you did not know what you know now in the 6'th grade. In like fashion, the verbiage you are using on the Space forum only tells me how much you do not know and every 6'th grader knows how pointless it is to argue with a 3'rd grader. The 3'rd grader will have to learn on their own.
Mike: I’ll put end to my nonsense assertions, but first answer to yourself this final question: What is for you the final sense of the physical universe? I guess that in your concept, there must be a “road map” to guide physical science in its searching, or you think that go to drift simply ensures objectivity?
I make a lot of wild claims also however I don't try to do this in science. As in I can back up what I say with references. What you say here only tells me you need to post your space philosophy on the philosophy forum.
Sorry to disappoint you. Any 3'rd grader can create a wild story and think it is worth considering as a basis of science. Its quite another story providing scientific data and mathematical backing as references for your wild ideas.
Thats all baloney. Just something you dreamed up based on what you don't know. No vocabulary. No references. its bunk. Don't make the mistake of believing what you don't know is something shared by others and don't make the mistake that I am going to somehow try to make sense of what you say. Like I have pointed out numerous times, you can find all kinds of Phd wannabe's posting their dissertations on the web for a reality check. These people have consistent mathematical equations to back up what they say whereas you have nothing here. So why would I entertain your wild ideas when I can find any number of other ideas not so wild by people with Phd's? You need to take this stuff over to space and time where you can debate it with people at your level of education/think it is worth debating.
Because physics is in perpetual relative movement between the two forces, this means that there are local or temporary imbalances not showing punctually this universal law, but we’d have to understand that the energy flowing from the magnetic core to the electronic edge and from this one towards the nucleus is an eternal cyclical process of mutual feedback in permanent search of physical balance. You can be sure that universal physics is summarized in the above comment. All these theories by you outlined obey this simple universal law. When our physicists look for the similarities between macro-cosmic gravitational fields and applied it with discernment to electronic micro-cosmic fields and vice versa, make sure that that terminology will change since it arises from a not universal viewpoint from which they look at physical phenomena.
Mike: The law of energy conservation implies balance between the positive and the negative, between the creative and the receptive etc. at universal level. This means that the universe does not need to be created; there is no energy which comes from outside of it, everything is inside of it. The law of universal gravitation shows such balance between internal nuclear magnetic forces and electronic external forces.
Emmy Noether (a friend of Einsteins) proved mathematically that for every conservation law in physics there is a mathematical symmetry. Nothing new to me but last night I learned a NEW symmetry found in Chaos/Fractals. The first thing I thought of is what conservation law it would apply to but this is not something I could hope to begin to discuss here on FC.
Hubble constant/cosmological constant/critical density/omega/lambda/the radiation era/the matter era/the dark energy era/dark matter/WMAP inhomogenities sizes/recombination/Friedmann equations/Einstein field equations/supernova type 1A/type II/cepheids/Hubble telescope Key Project/Wendy Friedman/Mather/Ned Wright/Alex Filippenko/Michio Kaku/big bang nucleosynthesis/element distribution/proton-proton fusion/stellar nucleosynthesis/cosmic geometry/S(t) the expansion function of the universe/Inflation/GUT's/TOE's/Electroweak force unification/color force/Neutrino distribution and types/Noethers theorem/Gauge symmetry and electric charge conservation/Lie Groups.
Vocabulary. I just don't see it. The above things are basic education to me and several pages are typical to required to explain each at an intuitive level without math.
Mike: In my last Post I am just giving the parameters I was talking about to you. I am saying honestly what I think and I want to participate to you more than anyone the sense that for me has Science itself and not only through theories.
Mike: You have just said: “I am just going to get a bunch of people questioning things that are no longer questioned by science since they do not know the experiments involved leading to their no longer being questioned”. This was exactly the point that leads to discussions. Many of us ignore or fail to understand to what extent these experiments could explain the real matter in discussion. It is difficult to be objective, our personal opinion always prevails over any explanation which might seem "objective" and this is psychologically true. It is difficult to reach a consensus when it’s not yet defined the parameters which define a truly objective scientific concept. In other words: how could be the subjective and the objective separated in order there was no additional questioning? In my opinion, which are such unavoidable parameters?
Separate names with a comma.