Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by theorist-constant12345, Feb 1, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Abstract- This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to reality, in a primary respect to science process, and to create a primary rule or principle on which something is based, as opposed to presenting naive set theories. By using a systematic dialectic approach and a discourse of information, a reality that looks at the true values of reality, that humanity has quantified, and showing by logical axioms,Armstrong axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
A set of primary rules or principle that of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the "rule of definition" and the "rule of substitution, a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions).

Present information suggests -In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.
I suggest by combining matter and time into a single manifold called Theorist space Paradox, , time is treated as moving with an object, time being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or the object and dependent relative to gravitational fields for the object or observer.
Time is not based on the movement of the Earth through a space time, time is the movement of the Earth . Time exists with or with out the Earth in space but has no value and does not start unless occupied by matter. We use the regular motion of the Earth to define an increment of time that matter occupies a space. The regular movement of the Earth was essentially our first 'ruler' to measure the passage of time. We now have much more accurate clocks to measure the passage of time that matter occupies a space, a device that uses an electronic transition frequency and the corresponding beats are equal to one second of motion of a surface point on Earth that was taken and made has close as possible to the original second based on motion..
Time is based by humanity on rotation of the planet, , based on movement of matter through space and occupying space and only when matter occupies a space does time accumulate in the occupied space, and once the space is then unoccupied, the value of the now unoccupied space resets back to zero.
Time in space does not change and does not have direction, it is infinite like space and an observer or object moves through space creating time within the none moving time, we are the cause of time and time does not exist without our presence or the presence of matter .

Present information suggests-Light usually refers to visible light, which is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight.

I suggest that EM radiation is the communications protocol by low voltage differential signalling of matter, which is formed by matters resistance force to the opposing force of light thus giving propagation and pressure magnitude to spectral content, each of which content is capable of transmitting messages modulated onto light waves in their perceived spectral content that travel through the constant equilibrium of light to sight, a carrier signal to the brain, a communications protocol that is a system of digital rules for data exchange between light interactions with matter and within itself to the brain. Communicating systems use well-defined formats (protocol) for exchanging messages.
The information exchanged through a constant, the main means of mass communication—that is governed by rules and conventions that can be set out in technical specifications called communication protocol standards. The nature of a communication, the actual data exchanged and any state-dependent behaviours, is defined by its specification and the brains ability to interpret this information.
The basic difference between a parallel and a serial communication channel is the number of electrical conductors used at the physical layer to convey bits, this effect can be attributed to the transfer of energy from the light to an electron in the matter. From this perspective, an alteration in either the amplitude or wavelength of light would induce changes in the rate of emission of electrons from the matter.
A parallel communication is a method of conveying multiple binary digits (bits) simultaneously. It contrasts with serial communication, which conveys only a single bit at a time; this distinction is one way of characterizing a communications link to the brain that also becomes a duplicate transfer by mirrored properties, a period of changing from one state or condition to another by receivership.
A communication channel or channel, that refers to a physical transmission medium such as the constant of light in passive dark space, or to a logical connection over a multiplexed medium such as light. A Synchronization of the coordination of events to operate a system in unison to sight. The familiar conductor of an orchestra that serves to keep the orchestra in ''time''.

Part 3- Conclusion.

I conclude by the discourse of actions of present knowledge that the above part 1 and part 2 are a Paradox to present information and with use of Armstorngs axioms and Armstrong's axioms been a set of axioms (or, more precisely, inference rules) used to infer all the functional dependencies on a relational database, that the dependency of the present maths applies to both part 1 and part 2 of my paper. I also conclude that part 1 and part 2 justify my abstract.

Last edited: Feb 1, 2015

3. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,754
Inane incoherent (and grossly ignorant) crap.

5. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Return when you can prove it to be falsifiable.

Messages:
21,703
And a conglomeration of words, certainly not a scientific paper by any stretch of the Imagination.

Snowshy likes this.
8. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,754
Oh look.
You managed to completely misuse terminology AGAIN.
As usual you put scientific words and terms into your posts without even a basic understanding of what they mean or how they should be used.

9. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Return when you can prove it wrong.

10. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Return when you can prove it wrong.

11. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
Sory, T-C, that's not how science works. That's why you are here, posting your incoherent fantasy drivel on a science bulletin board, instead of publishing it.
Interesting word choice that time, probably an accident/mistake. "Fasifiable" refers to the idea that an experiment can be constructed that can agree or disagree with the hypothesis. It is your responsibility to provide a falsifiable hypothesis and an experiment that is capable of falsifying it.

12. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Firstly It is far from fantasy drivel, again I will ask you to prove it wrong.
Secondly , I would not know what to do with the idea or where to send it, or how to improve on the wording .
Either way I know I am correct, I know people are not stupid and know exactly what it says, so unless It can be proved wrong, you have a Paradox.

13. ### Russ_WattersNot a Trump supporter...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,051
You haven't provided anything that can be proven right or wrong -- it's just gibberish.
Clearly.
Clearly.
Clearly.

Snowshy likes this.
14. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,754
False.

It's a mish-mash of completely irrational, false, and misunderstood concepts coupled with utterly unrelated disciplines.

Correct: basically because you don't know anything.

No you don't.
You believe you're not wrong.
The facts show otherwise.

Except, apparently, for you.

Nope.

Nope.

Snowshy likes this.
15. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
It is not gibberish, I will even help you try to destroy my own idea because I already know I can't.

Part 1 paradox- Science would have to prove that time actually exists in an unoccupied space, where I can prove time exists in an occupied space.

Part 2 paradox - Science would have to prove that by the EM radiation we are not simply just seeing in the dark. We could be seeing in the dark or it could really be light, but there is no way to tell the difference.

16. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
I take it you have not a clue how to prove it wrong then meaning my Paradox is very real.

Messages:
21,703
Gibberish.

That is part lie, part gibberish.

More gibberish.

Stop dreaming theorist constant, stop fooling yourself, you are the only one you are fooling!

18. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
Gibberish learnt a new word have we, like I said come back when you can prove it wrong but I already know you can not.

19. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,754
Absolute crap.
It can't "be proven wrong" because it's not coherent, not logical, not rational and total nonsense.
What you're doing is the equivalent of saying "prove that C Sharp isn't orange and made of doughnuts".
What you're positing isn't a case of "right and wrong" it's a case of complete and utter stupidity.
(Oh, and it's not a paradox").

20. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
It is not coherent but you say it is not a paradox, really you are funny that says you obviously understand it, I am not here to bicker with you, either prove it wrong or stay out of the thread, it is correct so I await your lies to try and dispute the truth.

Messages:
21,703

Like I said, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Gibberish, irrationality, delusions, and general crap prove themselves wrong.
And at least that is one claim to fame you can grab hold of.

22. ### theorist-constant12345BannedBanned

Messages:
2,660
You know you are struggling to prove this wrong, I know because I have tried also to prove it wrong, by mentioning a Paradox that rules out all use of present science to prove it wrong, because I am saying the maths is the same and it is a perceived choice of 50/5o , although I see more like 60/40 my favour .

Messages:
21,703