 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / September 2005A 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. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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 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 > Hi, > > I'm here on sci.physics to say hello. Why don't you just remain an idiot crackpot on sci.math? Dirk Vdm 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 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. Just like this post. Boy, that free will is irritating, isn't it??? Someone like the Dickster is irritated by it, and the damn stuff in other people just won't behave for him!!!! Try this: Dick commands "Andromeda galaxy, rotate the other way!" 'Iron core of the Earth, go to absolute zero." instantly!!!!!!!" Dirk Van de moortel, get a life and learn what ewe can control, and what ewe can't control. And in the grand tradition of sci.physics, we'll throw in an expletive for free: You idiot. Boy, that made me feel better. Always helps one's psyche to treat people like sh.t, I tell you. Have a nice day. That's an order. Once upon a time there evolved a civilization. It was going along pretty well until it developed a lot of very complicated technology and the trouble is that it went extinct because the killer ape level people never learned to cooperate with one another. They were on the verge of forming a Global Brain when a few noncooperators ruined it for everybody. The noncooperation extended all the way from terrorism down to the sci.physics usergroup. It seems that they might have made it if they had only heeded the lessons in Douglas R. Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas", the last several chapters on what cooperation can do. But instead they choose to fight and dissent and expose their bad toilet training by their infantile level of interacting with one another. But it made no vas differens because there are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 other solar systems out to the causal horizon, and plenty of other civilizations merely came in and took their place. Amen. >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. ----- 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 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, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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.)  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. [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] SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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" >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. ----- In sci.physics.particle David McAnally <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote: :>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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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." > >In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ----- 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. 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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." > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ----- 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." 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. . . : 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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 > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ----- > "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 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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 > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ----- > "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 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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." > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "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 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 schultr@mail.biu.ac.il 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 > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "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 | > In sci.physics.particle Ross A. Finlayson <raf@tiki-lounge.com> wrote: | > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] | -- | "You don't have to be cruel to be kind." - Spacehog and with that rant... *plonk* Androcles. > 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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.