| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ross A. Finlayson" |
| Date: |
24 Sep 2005 04:31:48 AM |
| Object: |
A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical logic.
For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care for
a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
I'd like to close with a nice quote:
Marshal Law:
"I know... I just love hearing it."
"And if you can't join them... beat them!"
"Haven't found any yet."
Ross F.
.
|
|
| User: "David McAnally" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 10:53:35 AM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com> writes:
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical logic.
This was where you kept chanting the mantra that ZF was inconsistent, but
you could never prove it. Apparently you mistakenly think that if you
chant any such mantra often enough, it becomes true.
Guess what. Your chanting did not prove inconsistency when you started,
and it still doesn't. The only place where mathematical logic was
conquered by you is in your own deluded imagination.
-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 11:01:15 AM |
|
|
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
news:dh3spv$2k74$1@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Guess what. Your chanting did not prove inconsistency when you started,
and it still doesn't. The only place where mathematical logic was
conquered by you is in your own deluded imagination.
PHUCKWIT!
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 05:53:39 AM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote in message news:1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 12:14:18 PM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
[snip crap]
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
[snip more crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 12:00:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 24 Sep 2005 02:31:48 -0700
<1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical logic.
For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care for
a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
I'd like to close with a nice quote:
Marshal Law:
"I know... I just love hearing it."
"And if you can't join them... beat them!"
"Haven't found any yet."
Ross F.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the photoelectric effect. That should be
simple enough.
(For the purposes of this discussion, the photoelectric effect
indicates that the dislodgment of electrons is *frequency*-dependent,
rather than intensity-dependent. In short, one can throw all of
the red light (within reason) onto a sensitized surface and get
not a single electron, but very weak ultraviolet light dislodges
them readily -- assuming appropriate materials, which I for one
would have to look up.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 12:28:50 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:31bg03-dmg.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
| <raf@tiki-lounge.com>
| wrote
| on 24 Sep 2005 02:31:48 -0700
| <1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
| > Hi,
| >
| > I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
| >
| > How are you?
| >
| > I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson.
Yes,
| > I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
| > natural physics.
| >
| > For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
| >
| > By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical
logic.
| >
| > For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care
for
| > a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
| >
| > So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
| > physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
| > operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
| >
| > So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
| >
| > I'd like to close with a nice quote:
| >
| > Marshal Law:
| > "I know... I just love hearing it."
| > "And if you can't join them... beat them!"
| > "Haven't found any yet."
| >
| >
| > Ross F.
| >
|
| OK, I'll bite. Explain the photoelectric effect. That should be
| simple enough.
|
| (For the purposes of this discussion, the photoelectric effect
| indicates that the dislodgment of electrons is *frequency*-dependent,
| rather than intensity-dependent. In short, one can throw all of
| the red light (within reason) onto a sensitized surface and get
| not a single electron, but very weak ultraviolet light dislodges
| them readily -- assuming appropriate materials, which I for one
| would have to look up.)
The slow moving lawn roller knocks the wicket down flat, the bails
fall to the ground. The fast bowled cricket ball sends the bails flying.
http://www.prosportuk.com/images/catimages/Cricket%20Equipment.jpg
The high pressure water jet (10,000 psi) cuts the carpet, the dam
washes the carpet downstream.
http://www.geegraphite.com/water-jet-cutting/index.htm
http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-applications.cfm?id=108&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc
The microwave heats the food, the x-ray passes through it.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 01:34:13 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 24 Sep 2005 02:31:48 -0700
<1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical logic.
For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care for
a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
I'd like to close with a nice quote:
Marshal Law:
"I know... I just love hearing it."
"And if you can't join them... beat them!"
"Haven't found any yet."
Ross F.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the photoelectric effect. That should be
simple enough.
(For the purposes of this discussion, the photoelectric effect
indicates that the dislodgment of electrons is *frequency*-dependent,
rather than intensity-dependent. In short, one can throw all of
the red light (within reason) onto a sensitized surface and get
not a single electron, but very weak ultraviolet light dislodges
them readily -- assuming appropriate materials, which I for one
would have to look up.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Photons as point particles, and real mathematical infinitesimals.
The material, does it have a crystalline structure? Maybe the space
lattice configuration has something to do with it. Crystalline:
elastic.
I don't know. I don't care, although I'm interested, the point is that
there can only be one consistent, complete, and assumably concrete
theory, the null axiom theory, which is due to the nature of truth
dually universally axiomatized.
Ross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 03:06:24 PM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 24 Sep 2005 02:31:48 -0700
<1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
[snip crap]
OK, I'll bite. Explain the photoelectric effect. That should be
simple enough.
(For the purposes of this discussion, the photoelectric effect
indicates that the dislodgment of electrons is *frequency*-dependent,
rather than intensity-dependent. In short, one can throw all of
the red light (within reason) onto a sensitized surface and get
not a single electron, but very weak ultraviolet light dislodges
them readily -- assuming appropriate materials, which I for one
would have to look up.)
Photons as point particles, and real mathematical infinitesimals.
The material, does it have a crystalline structure? Maybe the space
lattice configuration has something to do with it. Crystalline:
elastic.
I don't know. I don't care, although I'm interested, the point is that
there can only be one consistent, complete, and assumably concrete
theory, the null axiom theory, which is due to the nature of truth
dually universally axiomatized.
Babbling idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 07:00:11 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 24 Sep 2005 11:34:13 -0700
<1127586853.120252.114260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 24 Sep 2005 02:31:48 -0700
<1127554308.042681.143080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of realirt,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquering mathematical logic.
For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care for
a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
I'd like to close with a nice quote:
Marshal Law:
"I know... I just love hearing it."
"And if you can't join them... beat them!"
"Haven't found any yet."
Ross F.
OK, I'll bite. Explain the photoelectric effect. That should be
simple enough.
(For the purposes of this discussion, the photoelectric effect
indicates that the dislodgment of electrons is *frequency*-dependent,
rather than intensity-dependent. In short, one can throw all of
the red light (within reason) onto a sensitized surface and get
not a single electron, but very weak ultraviolet light dislodges
them readily -- assuming appropriate materials, which I for one
would have to look up.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Photons as point particles, and real mathematical infinitesimals.
The material, does it have a crystalline structure? Maybe the space
lattice configuration has something to do with it. Crystalline:
elastic.
I don't know. I don't care, although I'm interested, the point is that
there can only be one consistent, complete, and assumably concrete
theory, the null axiom theory, which is due to the nature of truth
dually universally axiomatized.
A good theory has to at least explain phenomena, axioms or no.
Second challenge: explain the atom. Bear in mind that a moving
charge radiates away energy (e.g. radio waves).
Ross
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
25 Sep 2005 04:59:40 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
A good theory has to at least explain phenomena, axioms or no.
Second challenge: explain the atom. Bear in mind that a moving
charge radiates away energy (e.g. radio waves).
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
I'm basically a platonist, that means the expectation that mathematical
objects are some physical things. In a similar sense, I expect
physical objects to essentially behave as mathematical objects, a kind
of natural platonism that it is not necessary to, for example, describe
the path of a rollling ball with some necessarily explicit
specialization of mathematics, but instead that mathematics suffices.
MacAnally raises the point that I think ZF is inconsistent, for reasons
of having proven it to myself in that the predicate "true" exists and
for "for elements x in set X, true" is a set, and so regularity is
contradicted. I think the other axioms of ZF, Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory, are theorems of a null axiom theory, but not necessarily under
all conditions, and not necessarily not.
It seems that when a theory is axiomatized, ie not the logical axioms
or truth tables of predicate logic but non-logically axiomatized, ie
definitions and statements beyond notions like true, false, and
mechanisms of associativity, on the non-logical or proper
axiomatization, Goedel shortly thereafter goes about telling you that
there are true statements using your definitions that your theory can
never prove. That's what's called incompleteness, that things are true
that you can't prove, and it's about as bad in a theory as
inconsistency, that there are false things that you can prove.
Without having axioms, it seems initially that either a: nothing, or b:
anything can be proved, even things that are not true. With truth and
falsity being basically opposite ends of a spectrum, or poles, from the
universe of available objects, even defining which is which is
arbitrary. That gets into, basically, what is called the "Liar
paradox", "this sentence is not true", dually-self-intraconsistency,
Janus' introspection. There is then a concept that I call
uniquification that basically describes objects that happen to be
interpretable as numbers, all of them.
So, a good theory has to be consistent and complete. Where there can
only be one of those, then it is that thing, dually totally permissive,
null, and totally strictured, universally axiomatized.
Ross
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
25 Sep 2005 11:00:11 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Ross A. Finlayson
<raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote
on 25 Sep 2005 02:59:40 -0700
<1127642380.484769.266510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
A good theory has to at least explain phenomena, axioms or no.
Second challenge: explain the atom. Bear in mind that a moving
charge radiates away energy (e.g. radio waves).
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
I'm basically a platonist, that means the expectation that mathematical
objects are some physical things. In a similar sense, I expect
physical objects to essentially behave as mathematical objects, a kind
of natural platonism that it is not necessary to, for example, describe
the path of a rollling ball with some necessarily explicit
specialization of mathematics, but instead that mathematics suffices.
MacAnally raises the point that I think ZF is inconsistent, for reasons
of having proven it to myself in that the predicate "true" exists and
for "for elements x in set X, true" is a set, and so regularity is
contradicted. I think the other axioms of ZF, Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory, are theorems of a null axiom theory, but not necessarily under
all conditions, and not necessarily not.
It seems that when a theory is axiomatized, ie not the logical axioms
or truth tables of predicate logic but non-logically axiomatized, ie
definitions and statements beyond notions like true, false, and
mechanisms of associativity, on the non-logical or proper
axiomatization, Goedel shortly thereafter goes about telling you that
there are true statements using your definitions that your theory can
never prove. That's what's called incompleteness, that things are true
that you can't prove, and it's about as bad in a theory as
inconsistency, that there are false things that you can prove.
Without having axioms, it seems initially that either a: nothing, or b:
anything can be proved, even things that are not true. With truth and
falsity being basically opposite ends of a spectrum, or poles, from the
universe of available objects, even defining which is which is
arbitrary. That gets into, basically, what is called the "Liar
paradox", "this sentence is not true", dually-self-intraconsistency,
Janus' introspection. There is then a concept that I call
uniquification that basically describes objects that happen to be
interpretable as numbers, all of them.
So, a good theory has to be consistent and complete. Where there can
only be one of those, then it is that thing, dually totally permissive,
null, and totally strictured, universally axiomatized.
Ross
Well, in that case you have a good theory, since the null axiom theory
has no axioms, and therefore can produce no theorems. Congratulations!
Your Nobel is in the mail...
:-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
25 Sep 2005 12:11:53 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Well, in that case you have a good theory, since the null axiom theory
has no axioms, and therefore can produce no theorems. Congratulations!
Your Nobel is in the mail...
:-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Excellent. (Steeples fingers.)
If I claim it's a revolutionary theory, then I would lose 50 Baezian
crackpot points by predicting anything. It's just a theoretical
background to say reality can be complete and consistent.
While that is so, I also describe some results to do with things
infinite that might be illustrable in physical events. For example, if
points on a 2-D line are one-sided, and discrete points are two sided,
eg continuus points always a rising, or falling edge and discrete
points a rising and falling edge, it terms of a straight line having a
frequency, which might be takent to be zero or infinity, then I am
definitely talking at least some nonsense. However, with that notion
giving some analytical results, for example similar to the unit impulse
function, not a real function, then infinite sets being equivalent,
which is not the same thing as the null axiom theory but instead a
theorem of the null axiom theory, the natural/unit equivalency function
might help explain some things for example along the lines of lights'
behavior around stellar masses as compared to particle streams.
It might not, I have not made comprehensively explanations why it does.
In earlier discussions, I'm among those who think that the universe,
the physical universe, is in a variety of senses infinite. To make a
statement about the physical universe is in many senses similar to talk
about the set-theoretical universe or logical domain of discourse.
That might be exhibited in that it takes higher levels of energy to
increase the precision of measurements of the universe, as it does. As
the masses of point particles are more precisely predicted, they
decrease.
There are basically three spatial dimensions, and one, two, or perhaps
three time-like dimensions, with the one, two, or three light-like
dimensions, Cl(3,1). Why is that so? Could it be because on the real
number line you could plot one coordinate, and down beneath the
infinitesimals another, and above the infinities another? I wonder. I
have not learned much about the string theory.
Ross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
25 Sep 2005 02:22:51 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory.
Let me guess: your theory is that brontosauruses were thin and one
end, very, very much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
.
|
|
|
| User: "David McAnally" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
26 Sep 2005 08:12:43 AM |
|
|
(Richard Schultz) writes:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory.
Let me guess: your theory is that brontosauruses were thin and one
end, very, very much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end.
Yes. There seem to be many similarities between Ross A. Finlayson and
Anne Elk.
-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
26 Sep 2005 09:02:07 AM |
|
|
David McAnally wrote:
schultr@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory.
Let me guess: your theory is that brontosauruses were thin and one
end, very, very much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end.
Yes. There seem to be many similarities between Ross A. Finlayson and
Anne Elk.
-----
sci.math_20041229.rtf:Truth is that which is not false. The basic
truism is the identity and tautology. Then, the abstract observer is
externalized, to consider that there is more than one truth, yet in the
style of Ouroboros all the same truth. With using set theory as a
mathematical foundation, we can explore the essence of truth with what
we deem as rigorous and empiricist methodology, to explain mathematics
where within mathematics all mathematics are concrete.
sci.logic_20050514.rtf:In the null axiom theory, the ur-element is
dually minimal and maximal, so it would have the maximal information
content. Its existence implies all true things. The snake eats its
tail.
sci.math_20040926.rtf:Seen from different perspectives, the real
numbers actually vary in their composition. It's like the blind men
and the elephant, except different: the elephant is the snake, hippo,
and zebra. In this case the elephant is an elephant, but if you need a
snake it'll do.
sci.math_20050214.rtf:Here there be dragons, the snake eats its tail.
sci.math_20050420_b.rtf:It's the Ouroboros, the snake eats its tail,
you codefine point along with the infinite dimensional dually oriented
vector space, for convenience, orthogonal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
26 Sep 2005 11:00:25 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
: Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
: He wrote about. . .
DING.
Start over.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what
we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because
where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
27 Sep 2005 09:36:01 AM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
: Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
: He wrote about. . .
DING.
Start over.
-----
Infinite sets are equivalent.
The universe is infinite, infinite sets are equivalent.
Colder than absolute zero is hotter than the Sun.
sci.math_20050606_b.rtf:http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/scene-04.html
sci.math_20050606_b.rtf:http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/scene-21.html
sci.math_20040722.rtf:The Arthur reference was to "Monty Python and the
Holy Grail", scene five. Villagers want to execute through immolation
a woman charged of witchcraft, where she was framed. Bedevere, who
becomes Arthur's scientific advisor, helps the villagers in a train of
logic to understand that witches are to be burned, wood also burns so
witches are made of wood, that wood floats, Arthur helps them in
contributing that a duck also floats, so Bedevere convinces them that
the trial of the woman is to compare her weight against a duck. So
they balance the weight of the woman against that of a duck, it is
equal, sealing her guilt in the assembled eyes. Bedevere then asks
Arthur who he is to know so much in the ways of science, and upon
recognition Bedevere is knighted and further accompanies Arthur and his
companions on his quest.
Marcel PrOOst? I don't understand the reference, also also wik.
The closer you look at the particles of the standard model, the smaller
they get. The fundamental particles are infinitesimal.
The universe is infinite.
Ross
--
"Also, consider this: the unit impulse function times
one less twice the unit step function times plus/minus
one is the mother of all wavelets."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
28 Sep 2005 07:17:58 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> : Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
:> : Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
:> : He wrote about. . .
: Marcel PrOOst? I don't understand the reference, also also wik.
Given that your first theory was that brontosauruses were thin at one
end, much, MUCH thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end, your
second theory must necessarily be that fire brigade choirs seldom sing
songs about Marcel Proust.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
28 Sep 2005 09:25:50 PM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> : Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
:> : Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about,
:> : He wrote about. . .
: Marcel PrOOst? I don't understand the reference, also also wik.
Given that your first theory was that brontosauruses were thin at one
end, much, MUCH thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end, your
second theory must necessarily be that fire brigade choirs seldom sing
songs about Marcel Proust.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
There can be only one consistent, complete, strong, and concrete
theory: the null axiom theory.
Then, casually, you can talk about your theory of brontosauri, and if
your vocabulary includes only thin, thick, middle and either end then,
yes, your theory of brontosauruses is accurate, and your brontosaurs
are well-defined, but you have only five words in your vocabulary.
Your absurdities aside.
The null axiom theory is dually universal. That is where basically the
glass is half full and half empty.
If a goal in reasoning is a theory, or basically a belief system, that
is at once consistent and complete, then particularly to be complete in
the sense of Goedel, according to Goedel, it can't be finitely
axiomatized, in the sense of some finite non-empty collection of
non-logical axioms.
In particle physics, the more energy that is used to determine the size
of the fundamental particles, the smaller they appear to be. That gets
into mathematical infinities and infinitesimals as basically physical
things, and the requirement of mathematical tools of the infinite and
infinitesimal to address those things, leading to revised and expanded
understandings of such things as the nature of the continuum.
As well, that gets into the examination of the items in the universe
with some completed totality that is the universe being an obvious
example that infinite sets are equivalent.
In reference to the Kantian Ding-an-Sich, the Thing-in-Itself or
Ouroboros, and the Hegelian Being and at once Nothing, those technical
philosophical notions with direct import to the mathematically logical
ur-element of the null axiom theory, and as well a variety of ancient
and longstanding theories of the Universe and Void, there is a theory.
Ross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
28 Sep 2005 11:45:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Then, casually, you can talk about your theory of brontosauri,
Correction: *your* theory about brontosauruses, not mine.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 04:02:36 AM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Then, casually, you can talk about your theory of brontosauri,
Correction: *your* theory about brontosauruses, not mine.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
That's spurious.
I want a theory that consistent, not proving false things, complete,
proving true things, and strong enough to be concrete, and that would
be a theory of everything.
In an almost serious duly diligent way, I don't know anybody else who
promotes an axiomless system of natural deduction with dialethically
paraconsistent ur-element, sets, numbers, or geometrical or physical
things as primary objects, post-Cantorian ubiquitous ordinals, and no
paradoxes.
Ross
--
"You see, Baudolino? You, too, can gain wisdom." - Hypatia
"I see that Ross has succeeded in altering the language of sci.math.
It's enough to make one weep." - R. Poe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 07:29:37 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: In an almost serious duly diligent way, I don't know anybody else who
: promotes an axiomless system of natural deduction with dialethically
: paraconsistent ur-element, sets, numbers, or geometrical or physical
: things as primary objects, post-Cantorian ubiquitous ordinals, and no
: paradoxes.
In other words, brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, MUCH thicker in
the middle, and thin again at the far end.
Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about. . .
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
of government."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 09:58:32 AM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: In an almost serious duly diligent way, I don't know anybody else who
: promotes an axiomless system of natural deduction with dialethically
: paraconsistent ur-element, sets, numbers, or geometrical or physical
: things as primary objects, post-Cantorian ubiquitous ordinals, and no
: paradoxes.
In other words, brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, MUCH thicker in
the middle, and thin again at the far end.
Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about. . .
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
of government."
Just because a moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you...
The parrot?
That's insinuating, but it is a funny sketch, not exsanguinating.
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/activity/h/humor/Special/Monty.Python/parrot
Why are there three space dimensions?
Ross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 11:29:29 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Why are there three space dimensions?
I hope that you will recover fully from your current bout with
E. Henry Thripshaw's disease.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
-- Deborah Lipstadt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 05:57:09 PM |
|
|
Richard Schultz wrote:
In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
: Why are there three space dimensions?
I hope that you will recover fully from your current bout with
E. Henry Thripshaw's disease.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
-- Deborah Lipstadt
Why should I care about some camp Brit-com from the 80's? Back then I
was watching Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Knight Rider, and A-Team,
moron. Of course: every day I watched Tom and Jerry: comedia, e
tragedia.
I don't even care for that improv show with the guy from the Drew Carey
show, Drew Carey. It just, never made me laugh.
I got a cool medical book the other day, "The Modern Home Physician."
1939, Completely Revised.
sci.math_20041129_b.rtf:Ken, 2 + 2 = 4. To Scandinavians herring is a
way of life, to Americans it's a Monty Python sketch. I saw this the
other day, it's haunting, yet funny: http://www.khaaan.com/ . It gets
more haunting and less funny.
rec.martial-arts_20050602_b.rtfBack in the day, everyone had seen
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Everyone. Young or old, from all
walks of life, everyone with a television and VCR in the '80's saw
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Everyone.
Why don't you try Saturday Night Live instead. Consider, for example,
the Church Lady. "Was it... could it be... SATAN?" Frankenstein:
"FIRE BAD. Aaanh." Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
Ha ha ha ha.
Anyways, the universe is infinite, and infinite sets are equivalent.
If the fundamental point particles', in terms of quarks', masses
decrease as they are more closely examined, extrapolate using your keen
deductive mind that perhaps they are smaller than that.
Ross
--
"You don't have to be cruel to be kind." - Spacehog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 07:41:13 PM |
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote in message
news:1128034629.194316.230730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Richard Schultz wrote:
| > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com>
wrote:
| >
| > : Why are there three space dimensions?
| >
| > I hope that you will recover fully from your current bout with
| > E. Henry Thripshaw's disease.
| >
| > -----
| > Richard Schultz
| > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
| > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan
University
| > -----
| > "I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
| > -- Deborah Lipstadt
|
| Why should I care about some camp Brit-com from the 80's? Back then I
| was watching Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Knight Rider, and
A-Team,
| moron. Of course: every day I watched Tom and Jerry: comedia, e
| tragedia.
|
| I don't even care for that improv show with the guy from the Drew
Carey
| show, Drew Carey. It just, never made me laugh.
|
| I got a cool medical book the other day, "The Modern Home Physician."
| 1939, Completely Revised.
|
| sci.math_20041129_b.rtf:Ken, 2 + 2 = 4. To Scandinavians herring is a
| way of life, to Americans it's a Monty Python sketch. I saw this the
| other day, it's haunting, yet funny: http://www.khaaan.com/ . It
gets
| more haunting and less funny.
| rec.martial-arts_20050602_b.rtfBack in the day, everyone had seen
| "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Everyone. Young or old, from all
| walks of life, everyone with a television and VCR in the '80's saw
| Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Everyone.
|
| Why don't you try Saturday Night Live instead. Consider, for example,
| the Church Lady. "Was it... could it be... SATAN?" Frankenstein:
| "FIRE BAD. Aaanh." Now is the time on sprockets when we dance.
|
| Ha ha ha ha.
|
| Anyways, the universe is infinite, and infinite sets are equivalent.
|
| If the fundamental point particles', in terms of quarks', masses
| decrease as they are more closely examined, extrapolate using your
keen
| deductive mind that perhaps they are smaller than that.
|
| Ross
|
| --
| "You don't have to be cruel to be kind." - Spacehog
and with that rant...
*plonk*
Androcles.
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
29 Sep 2005 08:33:14 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
and with that rant...
*plonk*
Androcles.
|
I'm actually kind of happy about that, from you.
Basically, Androcles here is saying that he has initiated the ancient
and memorable condition of "to kill-file" my USEnet posts. In that
way, he has turned on his own personal SPAM filter and shall no longer
have to endure the sight of my posts, to USEnet, from when a .killfile
file contained the e-mail addresses of people that tin, trn, rn, slrn,
and other newsreaders consulted to omit posts. That's what "plonk"
means.
Good! Androcles, I've never heard jack from you, you hypocrite who is
reading this message. May I interest you in the relativistic
nanogyroscope array mass-spring system gedanken? Too bad.
I use no filters.
Now then, thanks for reading my post. I write here to sci.physics
because I would like to share with you my opinion. I hope you
understand why I might see that as self-centered, because I'm trying to
impose an opinion on you that you might not yet have, that happens to
coincide with mine.
The universe is infinite. Atoms are totally small, but physicists talk
about the states of matter that comprise them.
Warm regards,
Ross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Schultz" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
26 Sep 2005 08:57:58 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.particle David McAnally <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote:
: (Richard Schultz) writes:
:>In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote:
:>: For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory.
:>Let me guess: your theory is that brontosauruses were thin and one
:>end, very, very much thicker in the middle, and thin again at the far end.
: Yes. There seem to be many similarities between Ross A. Finlayson and
: Anne Elk.
I can hardly wait to hear his theory about Marcel Proust.
-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system
of government."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 05:17:46 AM |
|
|
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Hi,
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
How are you?
I'm appropriately inequipped. My name is Ross A. Finlayson. Yes,
I do have a viewpoint on what is the fundamental nature of reality,
natural physics.
For that you might research my previous posts to sci.physics.
By the way, I'm coming over from having conquered mathematical logic.
For me, I get to look back and say it's my theory. Would you care for
a GUT, a TOE? Welcome to THE null axiom theory.
So, if you have an axiomless system: I claim it in the name of
physics, after having provided the fundamental mechanism for it to
operate. If you don't, then you're incomplete and inconsistent.
So, prove something from nothing. Can you not? Then, ...
I'd like to close with a nice quote:
Marshal Law:
"I know... I just love hearing it."
"And if you can't join them... beat them!"
"Haven't found any yet."
Ross F.
Hi,
Listen, as objectively as I can tell you, from my perspective you will
accept the null axiom theory as the source of analytical results.
Otherwise the theory is incomplete and inconsistent. There is one
theory, the null axiom theory.
If you very much don't care for that, I mathematically disprove you.
I'm appropriately equipped.
Ross
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 06:02:17 AM |
|
|
Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math?
Dirk Vdm
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math?
Dirk Vdm
******************************
The cost of free will developing in complex systems
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A theory, by Ross A. Finlayson |
24 Sep 2005 06:01:41 AM |
|
|
Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math?
Dirk Vdm
I'm here on sci.physics to say hello.
Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math?
Dirk Vdm
******************************
The cost of free will developing in complex systems
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
