Re: Absolute reality -> mind -> Relative Reality

On Mar 7, 12:11 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:53 am, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 6, 9:30 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:58 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 3:36 pm, doublecro...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:17 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 1:33 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 6, 6:48 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 7:01 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 7:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 10:40 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 11:12 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 9:32 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 10:30 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 9:23 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 8:30 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:15 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Both Einstein and Newton looked at the universe like this:

Absolute reality -> mind -> Relative Reality

Newton thought his mathematics represented absolute reality.

Einstein's mathematics are of relative reality.

Has anyone considered how to depict the entire expression (Absolute
reality -> mind -> Relative Reality) with mathematics?

More philosophical bull***.

It's a pretty clear challenge for mathematics.

Can mathematics replace the entire expression?

Since it took you several years to learn freshman level calculus, I
doubt you are qualified to even ask that question.

Why do you even post?

Do you have a bad attitude because you're trying to impress other
people with bad attitudes?

Or maybe I'm trying to convey the feeling that your philosophical
nonsense isn't appreciated. How many years have you been parroting
this bull***? How much closer are you to computing a number?

I would guess I'm less than a decade from a hypothesis that works for
all classical, quantum, and relativistic phenomena..

Does that include actually learning enough mathematics and physics to
cover that? I really doubt it.

"I was inspired by the remarks in these books; not by the parts in
which everything was proved and demonstrated carefully and calculated,
because I couldn't understand those very well. At the young age what I
could understand were the remarks about the fact that this doesn't
make any sense, and the last sentence of the book of Dirac I can still
remember, "It seems that some essentially new physical ideas are here
needed." So, I had this as a challenge and an inspiration. I also had
a personal feeling, that since they didn't get a satisfactory answer
to the problem I wanted to solve, I don't have to pay a lot of
attention to what they did do."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lec...

In the end our work is guided by reality. If all the currently
existing mathematics and physics (

You are not Feynman.

You haven't studied physics at any significant level. You have no
understanding of classical mechanics, special or general relativity,
quantum theory, or any other fucking thing. You have spent the last
four years or so spewing your nonsense onto this newsgroup and you are
not one fucking inch closer to being able to understand - much less
replicate - even the simplest things in physics.

In conclusion, shut the *** up until you get educated.

I made computer programs that solved simple physics problems when I
was 16.

I suppose I could have spent the last ten years studying more physics.

Or you could spend a little time reading a physics textbook. Anything
is better than the drivel you are pushing.

But I spent it writing more computer programs. You know. Work that
people you pay you for because it improves their business.

Maybe you don't know.

The point is, unless there they are actually written on God's stone
tablets somewhere, equations are just one possible way of doing
physics with pen and paper.

NO, IT IS THE ONLY WAY. The mathematics that physics uses HAS NO
ALTERNATIVE. If you want to produce numbers, you use mathematics. It
is as simple as that.

But you can use mathematics without equations.

The mathematics for QM are not the only ones.

I'm sure they aren't even the best ones.

You're not qualified to make that assessment not to mention that is
parroted from others, you bag of lies.

Are you happy with your life?

I can't imagine why anyone would be so needlessly negative and hateful
of other's lives, unless they weren't deeply satisfied with their own
lives.

I think I'm coming up with a physics based on a different type of
mathematics.

No, you are not. You have no understanding of what modern physics has
to do, so how can you possibly believe you are capable of reinventing
all of physics?

I understand what modern physics has to do.

No you don't you have no idea you think physics is about that
philosophical waffling that you do which is mere trash. And the
parroting and misrepresenting of others ideas. Combined with a dash of
thinking your Newton, which your not. Your merely to be charitable a
high-school drop out, who worked for 10 years at a crummy job and
thinks that this qualifies him to speak on science.

If you pass the MMX and Young's Double slit experiment you're half way
home.

Not even close, if you could do this it would be more then all the
other work you've done, i hesitate to call it work since that would
imply cognitive effort expended on it, which there wasn't.

So stop drooling and dribbling your "ideas" all over the place and
educate yourself. Then come back with a hypothesis not this worthless
conjecture garbage you continue spew.

Your opinions are all fascinating.

I'm glad you like to talk about me.

It makes it conveniently simple for you to avoid an objective
discussion.

It would be a shame to read something that lacked your colorful
insults.

No my life is just fine, but if I need a psychiatrist I will come and
talk to you...

Oh and I am glad you enjoy the insults... they are quite nice I think,
but you know after all people bring things up like qualifications....
then you have no choice but to knock them down....

Cheers

Qualifications?

I'm more qualified to pioneer a new type of physics based on Wolfram's
work than anyone else here.

No actually you are the least qualified since you know nothing of
physics or of Wolframs idea having completely misunderstood it. In
fact Wolfram knows physics and math then he made his theory you don't
know physics or math you have made no contributions to either, you are
an ignorant individual who thinks ignorance is a qualification. In
fact Wolframs idea has nothing to do with tossing equations out since
NKS is not a replacement for math but an extension of it.

It is a different field of math than anything based on equations.

If you want to be all impressive about it, what are your
qualifications to determine whether or not my idea is revolutionary?

Mike,Mike,Mike, you don't want to get into a qualifications pissing
contest with me.

Let's put it this way I have degree's in the right fields and the
necessary experience in the right fields to disqualify you combine
that with an IQ that makes you look like a cave man.

I am pioneering a new field. Your degrees are in different fields.

I'm not qualified to do your kind of physics.

You're not likely to think beyond your training.

A physics education? If that's all it took, Copernicus would have been
accepted in his lifetime.

Ah but Copernicus educated himself then went on to make his claims,
you are not Copernicus, you are in fact merely a dilettante, you
substitute knowledge with ignorance, wisdom with foolishness, and good
ideas with garbage. Not to mention nobody has said you have to go to
school just read a book, everyone who has made contributions was
educated on the topic, what makes you think your different thatMike
idiotHellandhas no need for education because of is awe-inspiring
intelligence and keen grasp of the topic at hand.

Get

...

read more »

Your right your not then what the hell are you doing here, you admit
you don't know physics and yet your trying to replace something you
know nothing about, anyone see a problem here?

Cheers
.

Quantcast