Home › Forums › Philosophy › Relative to the Trolling in the Philosophy Section
This topic contains 49 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
Anonymous 1 year, 1 month ago.
- AuthorPosts
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position properly.
This conversation reminds me of the Physics professor I used to debate with back in my University days.
We will have to agree to disagree or we will be doing this forever.
I don’t believe in paradoxes and I think discussing them is a waste of time.
I don’t believe in Wave-Particle duality. The Double Slit Experiment can be interpreted differently when you understand Lines of Force and J.J. Thomson’s work. There is no need to create a paradoxical condition where a thing is both a wave and particle at the same time. The so called Photon is just a point of intersection between an Electric line of force and a Magnetic line of force.
I believe in an Electric and Magnetic explanation for all of the various problems of modern physics. I think it is silly to use a Paradox to explain an experimental result. I may as well be reading “Flatland” or better yet “Alice in Wonderland.”
No thank you, I will stay with my 19th Century Physics. Maxwell, Heaviside, Thomson, Tesla etc. The Physics that adheres to Logic and Reason and makes sense.
I’ll leave you with some quotes from Nikola Tesla:
“the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boscovich, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum.
*BTW, I have read Boscovich’s work Tesla is correct about this. You would most certainly enjoy Boscovich’s work too.
“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”Keep this in mind when dealing with paradoxes, as this applies directly to a “Unified Wholism” tesla implies through his work on the ether:
1. Everything exists as one reflecting through itself as itself in void.
2. We view things as parts.
3. We view things as parts in the respect we exist as extensions of the one and exist through void.
4. The void acts as a veil where all unity is approximated through multiplicity as void (effectively being nothing) can be observed only through multiplicity. Void is observed through the inversion of unity into multiplicity. The atomism of the presocractics, socratics (aristotle) and post socratics, as well as the work of leibniz (which set the premise premises philosophical for einstein’s work) necessitates this dualism.
5. Atomism, however is “One”, considering only atoms exist; hence it is an interpretation of wholism through a dualistic paradox.
6. All paradoxes are the observing a unified truth, through a dualism, where the dualism is reconciled through a synthetic element of joining (reminiscient of Hegel’s/Fichtes, Peirce, Ternary relations (loosely), and a few other philosophers).
7. All unity is observed through a dualism and reconciled in a triadic way of dividing phenomenon. This mirrors Tesla’s philosophical perspective.
Wave Particle Duality is a reflection of the inherent paradoxical dualism through which we observed reality, except it is at the empirical level. You are technically correct that it does not exist, but this lack of existence is what it is: a lack of existence. It is merely a gradient way of viewing reality, that while true, is most likely not the full truth.
Space-Time, I argue, is merely observing a dualism between static (infinitely moving) and non-static (moving) space. All being is premised as space, and what we observe as movement is strictly a multiplicity of boundaries within a specific framework. All movement is an observation of individuation (multiplication/division).
The only point I disagree with you on, is that relativity is the opposite side of the same coin. It is adopted, most likely, because of the western roots of individualism in the collective zeitgeist reflects in the standard measurment system used for empirical reality, necessitating an atomism as the ground work for dealing with problems. Atomism and Relativity are synonymous and this can be reflected in Relativity setting the foundation for not just “atomic” weapons, but also the atomization of culture and religion into “subjective personal values” and “personal relationships” as the priority.
Relativity, furthermore, gains and extension from the communist parties dialectical materialism of marx’s where the individual becomes a replaceable cog mirroring the atomic nature of matter at the societal level. Capitalism mirrors this in a symmetrical “Pro-expression” manner, reflective of freudian sexual ethics, where individual appetite sets the premise for fulfillment necessitating a form of “seperation” between individuals reminiscent of another expression of atomism (at the societal level) that is symmetrical to the communist nature.
This dualism between communism and capitalism are extensions of industrialization as a philosophy, and set the premise for the feminist movement we see today…but that is another topic and time.
Either way the individual is reduced to a unit.
Now I bring this up, primarily because of the premise. If everything is “one” then psychology, or the individual spiritual human condition, is linked inherently to not just science but how science interprets reality. When dealing with science, you inevitably are dealing with not just a psychology but a priest class whose bent on truth is a “religious experience” in many respects in the respect it reflects a pursuit of “enlightenment” as “knowing”…but enough about that.
I agree, and argue for Tesla’s perspective that space cannot be curved. All curvature is strictly an approximation of quantum (very small because of distance between phenomenon) angles/frequencies.
I will put up a thread or two about the nature of the line as trifold, atomism as point-space through darkmatter, etc.
Hope this clarifies some points.
If you want to walk away with one message it is this: “Everything is interlinked whether you want it that way or not”. I believe Tesla agrees in my research and writings on him.
That last quote I posted from Tesla is often misrepresented by “Flat Earthers” so just to be clear about this. Tesla is talking about the Einstein Minkowski theory of Gravity, which requires “Space-Time” to be curved around Material objects.
I would argue that materiality, at its root, is 0d point space as dark matter and black holes. It really is essentially nothing.
Not Gargamel, but one like him with the “superiority complex”. You think if it was Gargamel he’d be able to resist posting a cat pic, or 3,000 of them?
Same behavior, different content?
There is no need to create a paradoxical condition where a thing is both a wave and particle at the same time. The so called Photon is just a point of intersection between an Electric line of force and a Magnetic line of force.
That is some deep s~~~. Great… now I am going to be up all night.
Anonymous1I would argue that materiality, at its root, is 0d point space as dark matter and black holes. It really is essentially nothing.
I will clarify my position on this. “0D Space” would be measured in Meters raised to the 0 power. That means M^0, which would always be one. The end result is that you would be left with a unit less quantity. Therefore “0D Space” is a quantity with no unit of measurement.
If it has no unit of measurement then it is not quantifiable or measurable and cannot be tested or verified. Therefore, It would be incorrect to refer to it as “space” since it has no unit of measurement. This is purely a mathematical concept and has no application to reality. That is why I can comfortably say there is no such thing as “0D Space.” The very term “0D Space” is a logical contradiction.
Anonymous1The only point I disagree with you on, is that relativity is the opposite side of the same coin. It is adopted, most likely, because of the western roots of individualism in the collective zeitgeist reflects in the standard measurment system used for empirical reality, necessitating an atomism as the ground work for dealing with problems. Atomism and Relativity are synonymous and this can be reflected in Relativity setting the foundation for not just “atomic” weapons, but also the atomization of culture and religion into “subjective personal values” and “personal relationships” as the priority.
Relativity, furthermore, gains and extension from the communist parties dialectical materialism of marx’s where the individual becomes a replaceable cog mirroring the atomic nature of matter at the societal level. Capitalism mirrors this in a symmetrical “Pro-expression” manner, reflective of freudian sexual ethics, where individual appetite sets the premise for fulfillment necessitating a form of “seperation” between individuals reminiscent of another expression of atomism (at the societal level) that is symmetrical to the communist nature.
This dualism between communism and capitalism are extensions of industrialization as a philosophy, and set the premise for the feminist movement we see today…but that is another topic and time.
Either way the individual is reduced to a unit.
Now I bring this up, primarily because of the premise. If everything is “one” then psychology, or the individual spiritual human condition, is linked inherently to not just science but how science interprets reality. When dealing with science, you inevitably are dealing with not just a psychology but a priest class whose bent on truth is a “religious experience” in many respects in the respect it reflects a pursuit of “enlightenment” as “knowing”…but enough about that.
I agree with you completely on this. Very well said. The only thing I would like to add is that I am reasonably sure that Relativity was put out deliberately by Sir Arthur Eddington to further a Political and Philosophical movement.
You can see that around this time (early 1900s) they also put out an “Art Movement” called DaDa. In which “Art was relative” its all a matter of perspective. You think the Mona Lisa is art I think taking a p~~~ in a jar is art or smearing s~~~ on a canvas is art. Nihilistic Materialism consumed the West. Communism took hold in the East. Feminists came out and the degradation of Mankind was well underway. This shift in consciousness all happened at once. I believe this was no accident but co-ordinated by the Royal Society, Fabian Society, Milner Group, etc. As you say the implications of Relativity extend well beyond the province of Physics. This was sort of an “Anti-Renaissance” if you will. As the Fabians say “We need to knock man off his pedestal.”
That is why I oppose Relativity so vehemently. If we can defeat these ideas in the realm of Physics we can then reclaim Art and the concept of Beauty as being Absolute, not relative (Fat acceptance movement). Men and Women are ABSOLUTELY different it is not a relative difference. I hope you can see where I am going with this in my battle against the Relativists. They must be defeated if we are going to have a Renaissance.
I would argue that materiality, at its root, is 0d point space as dark matter and black holes. It really is essentially nothing.
I will clarify my position on this. “0D Space” would be measured in Meters raised to the 0 power. That means M^0, which would always be one. The end result is that you would be left with a unit less quantity. Therefore “0D Space” is a quantity with no unit of measurement.
If it has no unit of measurement then it is not quantifiable or measurable and cannot be tested or verified. Therefore, It would be incorrect to refer to it as “space” since it has no unit of measurement. This is purely a mathematical concept and has no application to reality. That is why I can comfortably say there is no such thing as “0D Space.” The very term “0D Space” is a logical contradiction.The 0d point is only observed through the line, as a point of inversion into another line.
Dark matter and black holes are only measurable though light, gravity (pulling on light) etc. They are not measurable in an of themselves but only as the relations of light, gravity (light pulling through light, which may equate gravity to just as a classification of electromagneticism more than anything).
0d space is merely observing the inversion of space, nothing more…as it is “nothing”. Thing of 0d space…think of a point on a line. 0d space is effectively divided by 1 resulting in infinity (the line) with this infinity cycling through itself as 1. A line is strictly 0d space, or void, canceling itself out through it’s own nature into “being” or directed movement.
Nothingness, observed through the inversion of one object into many with the many objects inverted into one in themselves, cancels itself out.
Being divides nothingness resulting in infinity, and this infinity is observed through multiple infinities where all movement is strictly the ratio of one infinity to another.
Infinity is the foundation for the absolute, and relativity is strictly the approximation of one infinity through many. For example the golden rule is an observation of circularity. This circularity may extend to further moral aspects of being such ad violence, property rights, etc. This in turn stems to practical subjective variables, etc.
Each situation is an extension of the golden rule, and as a constant maintains a cyclical nature while reflecting the constant through various degrees of morality which still reflect through eachother. Killing reflects property ownership which reflects family life/reproduction, etc. through the reciprocal nature of this one rule.
While morality will always be relative to a specific circumstance, the moral choice for that circumstance will always be constant.
So when dealing with relativity, it is fundamentally an absolute law of space which reflects through physics, morality, psychology, religion, etc. as “atomism”.
The problem with applying a unit of measurement to space, is that this unit of measurement is space. Now this necessitates space as self referential, and using the ether definition as not just a “glue” but collective consciousness…all phenomenon have a degree of consciousness.
If you look at the geometric foundation for the degree argument, all measurement is founded in a form of relativism.
However the universe is absolute and the question occurs what is the proper means of measuring? The Egyptians used a 3 dimensional view of things…if memory serves.
So in one respect the universe is self measuring, in a seperate respect the only appropriate degree of measurement is one in which the all phenomenon are able to maintain an equilibrium.
Anonymous10d space is merely observing the inversion of space, nothing more…as it is “nothing”. Thing of 0d space…think of a point on a line. 0d space is effectively divided by 1 resulting in infinity;
No, dividing a finite quantity by 1 does not result in infinity.
Dividing by 0 will result in infinity.
If you will not correct your mathematical errors then your conclusions are all erroneous. Sorry, but thats how it works. Same with your other mistakes about alternations being equivalent to revolutions. Claims that are easily shown to be false by mathematics as I have dutifully explained to you.
At risk of repeating myself, over and over again, I will have to end here.
Cheers.
0d space is merely observing the inversion of space, nothing more…as it is “nothing”. Thing of 0d space…think of a point on a line. 0d space is effectively divided by 1 resulting in infinity;
No, dividing a finite quantity by 1 does not result in infinity.
Dividing by 0 will result in infinity.
If you will not correct your mathematical errors then your conclusions are all erroneous. Sorry, but thats how it works. Same with your other mistakes about alternations being equivalent to revolutions. Claims that are easily shown to be false by mathematics as I have dutifully explained to you.
At risk of repeating myself, over and over again, I will have to end here.
Cheers.My bad typo, 1÷0= infinity.
Actually, it doesn’t change a thing really. 1d space, divided through 0 results in infinity. The ether, as 1d space, divided through 0d point space results in the ether approximated through infinity.
If you read the above alterations and revolutions are measured through cycles, hence are “equivalent through cycles”.
What other “false” issues other than a typo? That really is the only one.
What math are you even pushing other than a 60hz resonant frequency for the earth?
You claim relativity is false, modern math is true, which institution is correct?
Relativity is true, but it is not a complete truth.
The 1d line effectively is an act of division through 0 resulting in infinity, where the line composed of infinite 0d points is composed of infinite lines. Infinity exists as one and is composed of multiple infinities.
Anonymous1What other “false” issues other than a typo? That really is the only one.
What math are you even pushing other than a 60hz resonant frequency for the earth?
I never said that 60Hz was the resonate frequency for the earth. You said that.
I said that 60Hz (and the sexagesimal system) is desirable because it evenly goes into a circle. You then claimed any number does. This is not true for example: 360 / 60 = 6. 360 / 50 = 7.2. I pointed this out and you started talking about the resonance of the earth, which had nothing to do with what I was saying.
You talk about “inverting unity” as I already pointed out inverting one always results in one. Inverted unity is unity.
You tried to convince me that an alternation is the same as a revolution because it appears that way when viewed from 2 of the axis. I showed you the error of your statement.
Now you insist on talking about “0D Space” and I have shown you the logical contradiction in using that terminology. I have shown you the mathematical reasoning why this is a contradiction and you then go on repeating it over and over again.
This is why I am getting frustrated because it seems like you aren’t reading what I’m saying or you are choosing to ignore the problems I am bringing up.
You claim relativity is false, modern math is true, which institution is correct?
Mathematics does not lie and it is not a modern invention. Mathematics proves truth absolutely. 2+2=4 ALWAYS. From your “point of view” it may look like 5, but that would be WRONG. This is not up for debate. This is the way it is.
What other “false” issues other than a typo? That really is the only one.
What math are you even pushing other than a 60hz resonant frequency for the earth?I never said that 60Hz was the resonate frequency for the earth. You said that.
I said that 60Hz (and the sexagesimal system) is desirable because it evenly goes into a circle. You then claimed any number does. This is not true for example: 360 / 60 = 6. 360 / 50 = 7.2. I pointed this out and you started talking about the resonance of the earth, which had nothing to do with what I was saying.
You talk about “inverting unity” as I already pointed out inverting one always results in one. Inverted unity is unity.
You tried to convince me that an alternation is the same as a revolution because it appears that way when viewed from 2 of the axis. I showed you the error of your statement.
Now you insist on talking about “0D Space” and I have shown you the logical contradiction in using that terminology. I have shown you the mathematical reasoning why this is a contradiction and you then go on repeating it over and over again.
This is why I am getting frustrated because it seems like you aren’t reading what I’m saying or you are choosing to ignore the problems I am bringing up.You claim relativity is false, modern math is true, which institution is correct?
Mathematics does not lie and it is not a modern invention. Mathematics proves truth absolutely. 2+2=4 ALWAYS. From your “point of view” it may look like 5, but that would be WRONG. This is not up for debate. This is the way it is.
You claimed, on page 2 of memory serves, that 60 hz works of viewing the universe in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. If this is the case, as you claim then while you are implying a resosant frequency of 60hz (hence earth) you are now claiming it is not a resonant frequnency?
60 divided into 360 observes the circle as 360 degrees. You can fit 12, 10, 6 in nice as well. The foundation of the degree, as presented in premised in the relation of geometric shapes to a circle, which in turn form the interior angles of the forms (stemming from the center point).
The degree quite literally is relativistic, a ration of one part within another.
1. The inversion of wholism as unity is atomism as multiple units. They are polar duals.
2. Actually you showed both exist and are measured by cycles, hence are dependent upon circularity. Alternation, revolution, oscillation, are various synonyms for cycles.
3. What mathematical reason. 1 divided by 0 is infinity. “Nothingness” cannot be observed except through multiplicity considering nothingness negates being. However only being exists, hence the negation if one being results into multiple beings.
In observing unit inverted you made the claim of 1 to the power of -1….where do powers count as the premise of inversion?
Inversion is observing 1 phenomenon and turning it upside down or creating a polar symmetrical opposite.
The opposite of being (1) is nothingness (0), however because nothingnessness cannot be observed only multiplicity can exist as nothingness is a statment of relation in itself. Hence the opposite of 1 is many 1’s. Nothingness is opposition and cannot be observed on it’s own terms.
Save the trolling.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
