• Re: =?UTF-8?B?RW5lcmd5Pw==?=

    From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Wed Jul 31 15:30:47 2024
    On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 10:02, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    A somewhat jocular, but practical working proper definition is:
    Energy is 1/2 m v^2, and everything else that is missing from the law
    of
    conservation of energy.

    And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
    "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
    (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).

    So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
    law? Maybe he has noticed that his own energy gone
    down the toilet?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Thu Aug 1 03:12:34 2024
    On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:43:47 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    W dniu 31.07.2024 o 17:30, gharnagel pisze:

    On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 8:30:15 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    And thus - conservation of energy, your alleged
    "law of nature" is really a simple language truism
    (and it's not a critique, just stating the fact).

    So Wozzie doesn't believe energy conservation is a
    law?

    Herrie, poor halfbrain, you're free to
    believe The Nature herself speaking to Chosen
    Ones and reveal Her Laws for repeating to
    little ones; but only idiots like you
    can believe such crap.

    So eighth-brain Wozzie, by his own admission,
    doesn't believe in conservation of energy.
    Why would that be? Perhaps it's because he
    doesn't believe in anything?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

    With the definition above - your "law" is
    a simple truism, and some fanatic idiots
    screaming "NOOOOOO!!!!" change nothing.

    Wozzie-idiot, the disinformation engineer,
    doesn't understand science. Of COURSE
    conservation of energy is falsifiable! It
    can be determined by making measurements.
    So far, it hasn't been falsified. Supposed
    problems have arisen in the past and were
    put to rest by finding new forms of energy
    or new particles.

    What's not falsifiable (and nonscientific)
    is Wozzie's belief system.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun Aug 4 18:03:30 2024
    On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 9:22:35 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

    Stringtheory is imho nonsense.

    "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either.
    It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more likely
    a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still
    inevitable in our quest for a unified theory.

    "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is –
    almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful
    non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to
    the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a
    magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and
    beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe
    our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our
    attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit

    my own theory is this

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

    It is far better, because it does not depend on particles or strings.

    Why does that make it "better"? The universe is what it is, neither
    "worse" or "better."

    “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
    thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
    rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
    -- Lawrence M. Krauss

    The idea is actually very simple, though very unusual.

    Just take spacetime of GR as kind of 'active background', which is
    smooth, but has internal structures.

    The 'smoothness' does not violate internal structure, because of a
    certain phenomenon called 'handedness'.

    The universe doesn't appear to be "smooth": not on the macro nor on
    the micro. Why would we expect it to be on the nano? Field theory,
    IMHO, appears to be an attempt to impose smoothness on an inherently discontinuous reality.

    Imagine this as symbolized by a moebius-ribbon.

    This has two sides, but only one surface.

    If we take now 'elements' of spacetime (kind of points with features)

    So much for "smoothness" :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Aug 4 19:38:36 2024
    On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:33:54 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote:

    "String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either.
    It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more
    likely
    a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still inevitable in our quest for a unified theory.

    "But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is –
    almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful
    non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to
    the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a
    magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and
    beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe
    our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our
    attention and exploration. -- Alon Amit

    “Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules; rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
    -- Lawrence M. Krauss

    Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions
    and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous
    manifold what is the Space-Time?

    It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals
    making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete revolution, or the old

    time goes back forever / space goes on forever

    then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions
    to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping,
    for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions",
    and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just
    exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one.

    I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves
    continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource,
    which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the
    sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.

    These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous
    mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course
    what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the
    occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric,
    and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that
    it's not just particles.

    If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete,
    it might as well be empty.

    Why wouldn't continuity be just as empty? The human mind
    just can't grasp action-at-a-distance, so fields were --
    invented. In Q.E.D., Feynman asserted that light is --
    particles. Particles communicate between discrete grains
    over distances, but the math for that is very complicated.
    That's why fields (and QFT) were invented. They are
    simplistic (?) approximations to reality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)