A Paradox of science.

How do those inflicted with the delusions of grandeur malady fit in with out right cranks?
They in effect, as with those that are delusional, advance hypothesis that are totally unsupported and infinitely implausible, and irrelevant and in total conflict with the way the world operates.
This is supplemented by paranoia and delusions of grandeur again, and the irrational fear that the world is persecuting them becuase of their self proclaimed genius.

Quite similar in many respects to the definition of delusions of grandeur.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh wow, he's progressed to simply mangling English now.

Don't you ever get tired of being pretentious?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For you to prove I was in some way suffering from any deluded state you would have to prove my paper untrue, you can not prove it untrue because it is the truth, if you can prove the truth deluded good luck to you.
You offer no evidence or relevance to this thread Sigmund.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everytime you post your inane hypothesis, you are supplying evidence.

Since it is obvious that it is you claiming to rewrite the world of science without adhering to the scientific method and dismissing peer review, the onus of proof is on you.
This of course may just be more ignorance on your part in how science operates.

Well since you have nothing of logic to claim, and since you have no evidence at all, is evidence in itself of your diatribe rubbish.
And I'll hang around to see who will view you to be correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That will be fun, as long as I don't hold my breath!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You don't have a paper.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's part and parcel of the delusional factor.

 

Let's add some logical sensibility to the Idiocy being excreted in this thread as fact......

https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse?language=en#t-10169

Or a shorter version on time and its reality.....

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

 

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/30/unified-theory-of-the-crank/

Here at denialism blog, we’re very interested in what makes people cranks. Not only how one defines crankish behavior, but literally how people develop unreasonable attitudes about the world in the face of evidence to the contrary. Our definition of a crank, loosely, is a person who has unreasonable ideas about established science or facts that will not relent in defending their own, often laughable, version of the truth. Central to the crank is the “overvalued idea”. That is some idea they’ve incorporated into their world view that they will not relinquish for any reason. Common overvalued ideas that are a source of crankery range from bigotry, antisemitism(holocaust deniers), biblical literalism (creationists – especially YEC’s), egotism (as it relates to the complete unwillingness to ever be proven wrong) or an indiscriminant obsession with possessing “controversial” or iconoclastic ideas. Some people just love believing in things that no one in their right mind does, out of some obscure idea that it makes them seem smart or different.

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

Now, in our terminology not every denialist is a crank, but cranks use pretty much exclusively denialist arguments to make their point. Cranks are a bit more deserving of pity, a bit closer to delusion and mental illness than the pure denialist, who knows that they are spouting BS to sow confusion.

 

The only evidence I need is what I have said, my paper does not need be longer or have more content, the content is explicit and the content shows reality .

I see you still can not discourse the paper and come back with an argument. Have fun trying the content is falsifiable and it is for you to prove false.

 

No, the content does not show reality...far from it.
It's exactly what everyone has told you, here and any other forum you have polluted with such nonsense.
Afterall, that's what all your permanent bans have been for.

https://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse?language=en#t-10169

 

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:

And finally as Grumpy so admirably put it.....
Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion.

Now constant whatever, it seems you have not adhered to even one of those excellent points I just made, and from a past thread.
That evidence alone, leads to the assumption of your delusional capacity.

 

I understand science my theory does not need anything else but I have added to it, my few paragraphs speak a 1000 words, seriously science will not win this battle because I know your arguments in reply and there is none ,

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 present naive set theories, by using a systematic dialectic approach and presenting a Modus Poden of arguments that opposes the present information by using a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their information and returns a conclusion (or conclusions) by showing construction of deductive proof's and falsifiable statement, a reality that looks at the true values of reality that humanity has quantified, showing by logical axioms, use of Armstrong axioms and relativistic thought, that these uses have no other discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
Introduction.
I accidentally fell into science with little prior knowledge and poor literate ability, but quickly became fasinated by the thought content and the volume of science there was to self learn, an education that was to be aided by various science interent forums.
The fasination soon became a passion and within time I was learning and understanding the knowledge.
However in certain aspects of Physics and process the information I was learning did not seem to make logical sense to myself and often resulted in forum bans by being stubborn in not accepting the discipline and by reason of myself poorly explaining my ideas, and I was at the time effectively still unclear of my own ideas and unable to put the ideas into a context that anyone else could understand.
I feel I have now acheived a better standard of literacy and I am able to express my ideas with clear intent.
Content
Part 1 - A theorist space Paradox opposing space time .

Part 2 - Light is a state Paradox.

Part 3 - Conclusion

Part 1- A Theorist space Paradox

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. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension".
I postulate that combining matter and time into a single manifold called ''Matter time in space'', that time is treated as moving with an object and time being dependent of the state of motion of an observer or an object and relatively dependent to gravitational fields as opposed to an object or observers motion in space time and a said space time dilation and space time curvature.
Time is not based on the movement of the Earth through a space time, the origin of time is the recorded rotation cycle of the Earth relative to the Sun's motion . Time exists with or with out the Earth in space but has no value that is measurable as a time period value unless that space is occupied by matter. We used 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 that are equal to one second of the original 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 a zero value.
Time in 3 dimensional space does not change and does not have direction or a value, it is infinite like space with no beginning or end unless occupied by matter creating a time accumilation in every dimension of space the matter occupies within the none moving time, we are the cause of time and time does not exist without our presence or the presence of matter but exists at the same time in a none value state.
Anology 1- Point A and Point B , 100 miles distance between them. Point A has a velocity of 100 mph travelling towards Point B that has a 0 velocity. When Point A reaches Point B the journey took exactly 1 hour relative tot he observer.
Throughout the entire journey relative to you , you observe the object and not the space, you observe time moving with the object, your focus is not of the space but on the object relative to you and relative to your time and reference frame.
Anology 2- Observe any object in a stationary reference frame relative to you , the object you are observing occupies a space, the object you are observing occupies a dimension of space equal to the objects dimensions for the same accumilated time as you occupy your own dimensions in space observing the object.
Move the object you are observing to a different place a different dimension of space.
You will observe that the now unocupied space from where you displaced the object that time now has no value, the value of time of the object is now displaced to another dimension of space you are observing.

Part 2.- Information processing by EM radiation-Paradox

Present information -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 postulate that light is a state and we see by EM radiation being a 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 Armstrongs 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 to of my paper.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science has already won matey, and there wasn't any battle.
Let me make it clear.....
[1] You have no scientific paper.
[2] You are posting in an extremely isolated science forum, in the alternative section, and probably heading towards pseudoscience or cesspool.
[3] Scientific establishments know nothing of you obviously, and you would not get a look in even to their dunny.
[4] You do not have a theory: You do not even have a scientific hypothesis: You have a warped, childish, "Alice in Wonderland" like fairy tale.
[5] You fail the scientific method.
[6] Peer review does not review childish antics and Ideas.

 

Etc etc.

 

So you still have no opposing argument then?
I win this one and you know it, it might not get me anywhere in life, but you no there is no way to beat this paradox.

 

Supported claims your evidence is my evidence, your maths is my maths, my theory is a Paradox of your theories. Try harder than that you need to beat the logic and deny how time was made,prove that time in space exists and prove you are not just seeing in the dark.

 

Nope: as shown by the fact that you don't use (or even refer to) scientific evidence.

Nope, as shown by the fact that you don't know the maths involved.

1) You don't have a theory.
2) You haven't outlined a paradox.
3) You don't know or understand current scientific theories.

You aren't employing logic, just some twisted parody that YOU think is logic.
And no, I don't need to "prove I'm not just seeing in the dark", since you're making the claim it's up to you to support YOUR claim.

 

The FACT that you can not or any person on the planet can not, make an argument against my claim shows the claim to be true regardless of your whimsy excuses.

 

As has been pointed out: your claim is so incoherent and nonsensical that it doesn't need to have an "argument made against it".
It's UP TO YOU to show that you're correct.
So far all you've done is strung meaningless words and concepts together.
For example (and this is at least the second time of asking): what the f*ck makes you think Armstrong's axioms have ANYTHING to do with your position?

 

I would take down the forum you mod or use to mod now I am clued up .

 

Armstrong's axioms are a set of axioms (or, more precisely, inference rules) used to infer all the functional dependencies on a relational database

a relational data base, your data base is relational because it is a Paradox.

A relational database is a digital database whose organization is based on the relational model of data