A Philosophical Physicist's Statement
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Aug 2005 10:35:17 -0700
A Philosophical Physicist's Statement
Douglas Eagleson, 2005
(I write with the apriori of Aristotle
stating a new work.)the short analysis
A second in physics is the period between
one state of the clock spring and the next.
And to take the spring state alteration
as the time is to define all such measure
as relative.
A state alteration in quantum mechanics
is defined similairly. A cause is never the
clock.
And so when the stability of the state
is considered the spring's in relation
to the halflive's must be considered.
Get off the perfect english reading
kick, and read concepts and relations.
Read content.
A stability of mechanical stress as
action is either the same or different
from the halflive's action in quantum
mechanics.
A material to material stress reaction
appears the spring's. And the decay
of the state appears the halflive's reaction.
A very careful consideration of the realm of
physics is required to resolve this dilemma.
A very careful analysis of the exact
relation of stress relative to decay is
the size of this realm.
And here the concept of the self-springing
wire is introduced to resolve the
question. A kind of self moving wire
is available to define the state
of spring as a solid state alteration.
Making the dilemma only the spring as
the shape of the solid relative to the
shapeless state.
Now, the last sentence is the resolution
in reality. And the concept is to be
a real philosopher thinker and never
handwave. Ninty percent of the Phds
will handwave at this point in the analysis
and discount my solution as confused.
A rule is envoked for the readership's
understanding. A USENET commenter is
always one of the ninty percent and the
ten percent of unsure philosophical thinking
readership never replies.
I claim to the ten percent readership to
have resolved the shape dilemma of physics.
A solid shape never acts relative to its
form. A mechanical action is not present
in quantum mechanics correctly.
And my whole analysis is to discuss the
correct nature of quantum mechanics
exactly and not by handwaving. A certain
aspect is perfect. And the selected aspect
was the solid as the formal action reaction.
That is it. A single sentence of insight
was given a context in this discourse.
And the added context was the correct
readership for true philosophical physics.
And the single relation held true by
strength of philosophical formal thinking
is now placed in relation to the
easy, cereal eating, mathematical
relation thinking.
A speed of memorized relationship
reciting is placed in the context of
the discovery and truth of the single
relation.
I can write of fifty Bernoulli original
relations of theory in physics.
And in this discourse two are discussed.
The solid dilemma solution
of physics and the form of the thinker.
A context for reading my USENET posting
is as a real scientific philosopher.
A philosopher who changes grammer and
spelling to suit the necessary task.
I write to cause the elucidation.
Meaning the relations discussed are
to be learned and cognated by the
readership.
And the form of the thinker is
a large philosophical realm. But
the ninty percential of Phds were
supposed to to know of its existence.
And not act, like real philosophical
physics was nonexistent.
Classical physical theory is the
realm of quantum mechanics. And
I am aware of the competency level of
quantum mechanics.
A huge school of mathematics is to
be the language of physical theory.
And the competency of this writer is to
be held exept, from modern mathematics.
Physical theory is real hard right now.
About fifteen abstract differential
relations are the required expectation
of the leadership in physics.
And the single exact realm as the
discourse is not present in the leadership.
A behavior of competitive mathematics
exists.
And I compete only with real philosophers.
So I am a real philosopher writing
as a USENET writer.
And to compete with the leadership of
physics I wrote the theory of
modern quantum mechanics.
It was posted as the Integrated Hamiltonian.
And it implies a completed abstract
differential.
And to write the exact relation as
opposed to displaying the competitive behavior
of the physicist is the context of
the modern physicist relative to the
classical philosopher.
I am proud of compete as a real
philosopher. I write all these words
as analysis. And the personal dilemma
of the ten percent readership is to
learn the distinction between
true philosophy and the relations
of the stated science.
A single classroom experience is likely
the only exposure for the ten percent.
An example task of the philosopher is to
read Kant's treatise on Apriori.
A competative philosopher has to write
in his life time a single work of the
same level of analysis. A standard of
discussion of the realm of examination
was set.
And modern philosophical physicists
such as Pensose and Heisenberg and
etc have all merely attempted to
examine nothing in the realm of the
true philosopher.
A standard of the analysis in philosophy
was set by Aristotle. Kant merely began
to compete.
I write of Aristolte's content and Plato's
school's form. And to compete is to
simply apply the school of Plato in
modern context.
And so my form of the thinker is to
be understood as distinct. I write
the entire word of every USENET posting
as an applied solution worthy of
readership by Aristotle himself.
And the common reader of the ten percent
is incapable of reading Aristotle.
I have the real desire and ability to
hold the position as a real modern
philosopher.
And to sit in quantum mechanical theory
as a leader and learn of the recent
advances in mathematical theory is to miss the
chance to learn to read the
school I live in.
A single relation of the abstract
differential is the definer of the
school.
A form of my preferred thinking
is this single mathematical relation.
I can apply it inately.
And it is proven to work for all
of philosophical physics.
So to call yourself a leader in
physics is to answer the question
of the recent advance in mathematics in relation
to a school of science.
Plato simply promoted a single school
much as the misguided Karl Popper did.
And to compete is the task of modern
readership. I claim the common
physicist as not even a reader.
And in this claimed perfect analysis of the
Modern Philosopher a single advance
in mathematics is evidence of a failed
understanding of the work of Kant.
He quite clearly applied the apriori
correct.
And my claim of his true analysis is
only to read and understand. He answered the
question without uncertainty and wrote the
analysis.
And this short analysis is to set
the standard of all of philosophical physics.
I write with a quite excessive consideration
and the single point of this analysis is able to be
given a single symbol representation.
It is not apriori knowledge's existence.
That was Kant's. He wrote as a true
philosopher competing with a school.
Aristotle as a mathematician never
encountered the systems of modern
science. And he never had the necessity
to apply his school to the level
of excellence I claim.
And my symbol constant theory is given
a differential transformed representation.
A shape of the letter can be a constant
in physical theory.
And to study the realm of the solid
and find analogy in the exact meaning
of the analogy is the apriori of
readership.
A transformation was stated.
And I claimed discovery.
A discovery of a single relationship
of shape to action is applied to
the realm of physics.
And the theory is given once more.
3.5e-5cm-sec=|H1|**4+|H2|**4+|H3|**4+|H4|**4
H1- decomposed dimensionality matrix
H2- same in another dimension of 3 space
H4- same in the single time dimension
A topology is stated where every relation
of quantum mechanical state is writable.
1=|h| a sngle hamiltonian is implied.
A system of matrix manipulation derived from
Hamilton's work is stated.
A four state hamiltonian is manipulable
to the system given.
And the transformation of the four state
element to the single matrix of its topology
is defined implicitly. An existence is
claimed as Kant claimed.
My discovery is intentional not accidental.
I write with the apriori of Aristotle
stating a new work.
A form of analysis is defined.
And the readship is who.
A recent advance in mathematics was implied
in this example.
And when I write a small theory and
a discovery is made by the readership.
It is only apriori being read.
And the standard of the readship now
is to determine the exact proper
ending of this discourse.
And the school of the modern philosophical
physicist is to be given formal definition.
We are who we write for.
note:This is abot two pages, a long
statement for the USENET. And for Aristotle
who attempted to write all of modern knowledge,
I used alot of the school of philosophy to
defined a smaller school and used a single
relation of applied abstract science in example.
Aristotle never believe the shape was necessary in
mathematics.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: TJ atoms push themselves? UFO flys away
- Next by Date: Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
- Previous by thread: Multiplicative (Two Variable) Noise Yields 2-Phases (Cancer vs Immune)
- Next by thread: A Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
