Infinite Potential

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Mar 22, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Speak for yourself. Your use of the word "salad" is of course something that a vegetarian might use when discussing culinary arts. In context of physical dynamics it is wholly inappropriate.

    What qualifies as a salad?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Merriam Webster Dictionary tells us that a salad is any of the various “usually cold dishes” including raw greens, vegetables and toppings. It is served with dressing or small pieces of food, or usually mixed with a dressing or set in gelatin. Dec 23, 2013.

    You can be called on your metaphors as well, ok?

    Now back to the topic.

    What is Dynamics?


    Does work increase potential energy?
    I believe my use of the term "work dynamics" in context of "potential" and vice versa is entirely appropriate.

    Try to keep up.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2023
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    A wonderful example of "elastic potential"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Do I see an illustration (picture) of 2 differential equations, each possessing "stored" potential to do work?

    Conservation of Mechanical Energy

    Mechanical Energy
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    On the contrary, “word salad” is a recognised term in psychiatry:

    “actionable work dynamic” is gibberish.

    And only thing all differential equations have in common is they relate a function (used here in its mathematical sense) with one or more of its derivatives ( in the calculus sense).
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Anything that is applicable to everything is useful for nothing. Like I said.
    I don't know what you mean by "before the big bang" or "before the universe existed". Time itself is supposed to have started with the big bang.

    You might as well talk about all the things that are north of the north pole.
    You speak of "potential" like it's an object, rather than a concept.

    This is a silly discussion. You're just using the word "potential" in the usual non-technical way, to refer to a possibility that something might happen in the future. There's nothing particularly scientific or mysterious about that. But you speak of it as if it's a profound insight into the universe, or something.
    What do you want? A pat on the back and a reward for your ingenuity, for managing to come up with that? Isn't it just obvious, from the common meaning of the word (which is the only one you're using)?
    I don't really care what you believe mathematical logic demands. If you're going to make that kind of claim, you'd better show me the relevant mathematical logic - i.e. give the actual mathematical argument you're relying on to make the claim.
    Word salad.
    "Actionable work dynamic" is word salad. I bet you just made it up.
    Of course not. Scientific research, at the limits of what is known, is always full of different ideas and conjectures about which hypothesis is best and so on. Scientists argue about the implications of experimental results and of theories all the time. But they are usually careful not to make claims they can't support with arguments or evidence.
    Science isn't a conspiracy, and scientists are not a conspiratorial cabal.

    You shouldn't let yourself be sucked into the vortex of mad conspiracy theories.

    Consider this: maybe Tegmark's and Bohm's more New Agey ideas haven't found widespread acceptance among scientists because (a) they have flaws; or (b) they just aren't very promising ideas; or (c) they don't suggest any useful research programmes; or (d) they seem like dead ends.

    It doesn't have to be some grand conspiracy to suppress their respective geniuses.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. There are no differential equations in the illustration. If you're seeing them, you might be hallucinating.

    Why do you think it is useful to post basic definitions of terms like "mechanical energy"? Do you think that exchemist and I don't know what that term means? Even after we both spent some time explaining potential energy to you?

    Do you think you could distract from your nonsense term "actionable work dynamic"? Or couldn't you find any references to that?

    Why do you keep wasting everybody's time?

    Why don't you address the specific objections that have been made about your position?

    I'm noticing this pattern from you, where you just skip over things you don't understand, or which seem inconvenient for your claims, and instead of responding you just post irrelevancies, as if with the intention of trying to draw attention away from your nonsense. You do this a lot. Too much for it to unintentional. Why do you do this?
    exchemist likes this.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Psychiatry is a physical science?
    Until it is defined.
    Well, the term "differential equation" is occasionally mentioned in context of dynamical systems.

    Dynamical system
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Of course it is, but so what?

    In post 98, you proposed that all differential equations involved potential (they don't) and that this potential was an "actionable work dynamic" (which is gibberish - at least it is unless you can give it meaning by defining it for us, which you have not done ).

    Here's a link to examples of differential equations involving dynamics (plural) which make no reference to either work or potential:

    I repeat, the only thing all differential equations have in common is that they relate a mathematical function to one or more of its mathematical derivatives (a term from calculus, which you don't understand), with respect to some variable.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Like Quantum Theory? It's all useful for nothing. Interesting observation.
    Before time began there existed a timeless, dimensionless permittive condition that we named "nothing" (no thing).
    Oh, James, what am I going to do with you. Potential is a mathematical permission. The absence of potential is a mathematical restriction. "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
    I'm glad that's settled then.
    Hey, it's your word. I had not thought of that before you mentioned it.
    And on what evidence do you base those conclusions? Do you believe that the elimination of wave-particle duality would make physics more complicated than it is?
    when there is a fundamental shift involved it does. Physical science hasn't been able to do away with religion has it?
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Strange as these illustrations were used to describe "differential equations"
    Are you now complaining that I use an accepted scientific term? Make up your mind, will you.
    It was a condensed description of Newton's third law.
    You may want to reconsider that stupid comment.
    AFAIK, I am addressing all of your trivial objections that are actually a waste of my time, instead of discussing substantive issues.
    Because I do see "relevance" and always back it up with a quote from mainstream science. If you don't see the relevance it's not my fault.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Talking about cherry picking! You found a pdf that did not have the term "work" in it, wow.
    In a mathematical context, sure, I understand that. But then, in a mathematical universe that function translates into energy and work in a physical context such as the illustration in post #102, which apparently you don't understand.[/quote]

    Gravitational potential

    Fundamental study of potential theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here's more ;
    Potential Energy
    And 10 more
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2023
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Clearly, you're no longer posting in good faith. You're just wasting everybody's time, like a troll.

    I think it's because you think you're part of a cult, and you feel obliged to lie and dissemble whenever somebody says something that might suggest that the Great Leaders might not actually be superhero genius gurus.
    Like a troll, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say quantum theory is useful for nothing, obviously. I said "anything applicable to everything" is useful for nothing. Is quantum theory "applicable to everything"? No, it is not. But "infinite potential" is applicable to everything. How do we know this? Because you told us so.

    It is "infinite potential" that is worthless. Useful for nothing. Get it?
    I explained to you that the notion of "before time" is meaningless nonsense, and why. However, even if it wasn't meaningless nonsense, you would still not know what existed "before time". So stop pretending you know. You don't have to tell lies for Tegmark, or whoever it is you're lying for.
    "Mathematical permission" is word salad. Stop making stuff up and pretending it's science. Why do you do that?
    It was never in dispute. You brought it up as a non sequitur response to something unrelated.
    Why don't you address the content of what I wrote, while you're busy admiring my fluency in English?
    What conclusions? Didn't you read what I wrote?
    Another complete non sequitur which has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why do you think this question is relevant?

    My answer to your question is: I have no idea. All I can say is that I'm not aware of any viable alternative models that do not involve wave-particle duality and which have equal or superior depth of explanatory power, compared to quantum mechanics. That's not to say that such a model is impossible, though it might be.

    Why do you care what my opinion is on that particular question?
    Clearly not. You're like a cult follower - a believer in a religion of pseudoscience, with cult leaders that you believe are infallible. Physical science doesn't appear to be something you want to learning something about.
    No. They weren't.

    Are you going to answer the questions I asked you? Or are you going to keep posting irrelevancies, like a troll?
    Stop trolling.
    Don't be ridiculous. You made up the term "actionable work dynamic". It doesn't describe anything. And even if it did somehow describe Newton's third law (which it doesn't), then you posted it in a context where it was a complete non sequitur.

    Who, exactly, do you think you're fooling here, Write4U? Yourself, perhaps?
    After you just doubled down on the stupid and replied like a troll? I don't think so.
    You dodge and avoid direct questions. You hide behind attempts to redefine words. I think about half of the content of any of your posts consists of pointless off-topic distractors.

    Is this the best you're capable of?
    You think that if you can touch base with mainstream science every now and then, by quoting a definition or using a sciency-sounding term, that somehow gives the rest of your nonsense credibility and justification.

    The problem is that whenever you post something from a reputable scientific source it is usually irrelevant to the discussion at hand and/or something you don't understand, even if there's nothing wrong with the content itself (other than it being an out-of-context irrelevancy). On the other hand, whenever you post your own thoughts, they are a muddled mish-mash of borrowed terms from science, combined with stuff you just made up on the spot, always liberally sprinkled with references to your cult leader figures. And whenever you make scientific-sounding claims in defence of your pseudoscience religion, they are nonsensical, or wrong, or something you're completely unable to justify with evidence or logical arguments.

    You're clearly interested in science to some degree. Yet you're completely unwilling to accept any correction or to try to learn anything when you get something that science says wrong. Because you don't understand enough science, you've ended up latching on to some celebrity pseudoscientists. Although you don't understand their claims or arguments, exactly, they sound to you like they know what they're talking about, so you're willing to go all in and just believe whatever they say, no filter necessary. Maybe you went looking for a guru to follow and you ended up finding three or four who you're willing to worship. But in the process, you threw away your common sense, and now it seems you're willing to tell lies and make up stuff on behalf of your leaders.

    Wake up, Write4U. Start being your own person again. Start thinking. Stop telling lies to protect those people who are more than capable of arguing their positions on their own behalf. They don't actually need a follower who only half-understands them; they won't thank you for making up your own hodge-podge version of their views, I assure you.

    If you're really interested in science, why not ask some questions and try to learn some real science? Sure, it will require a little more effort than trawling the interwebs looking for random quotes in support of some gurus. But it will very probably be more useful to you in the long run, for all kinds of reasons.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2023
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Quantum is applicable to everything. This is where you lack "vision". At quantum, that's where it ALL begins. There is nothing without quantum

    Like an autocrat (Trump) you have been demeaning me from the very beginning. Take some of your own medicine. It might teach you something.

    Infinite Potential is not my term. It is the title of a movie about David Bohm. You are the lying troll laying that title at my doorstep from the very beginning. When I am successfully defending the concept you throw hissy fits.
    Grow up and have some respect. I'm still your elder.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2023
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Oh, now you are projecting, how quaint.
    I can turn that around real easily.
    After all, aren't you part of the Establishment cabal of Great Leaders who might not actually be superhero genius gurus, but who hysterically defend the status quo?
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it is word salad.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    To you, it would be.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You're just proving my point. You refuse to listen. You subscribe to nonsensical pseudoscience views, like this one.
    You might have the best imagination in the world, but that won't make you a scientist.
    That's just a mantra - part of the creed somebody has taught you. When will you start to think?
    There's no shame in lacking knowledge or expertise in something. The shame lies in pretending to know things you don't know. The waste lies in being unwilling to explore better ways of thinking about things.
    If that's all it is, why were you doing back flips to invent your own pseudoscience definition of what that term might mean?
    If you're going to accuse me of lying, please quote the lie you are referring to. Use my words, not yours, to demonstrate the lie.
    Again, you misunderstand. I'm trying to give you a metaphorical shake, to see if some sense can get through the cracks. So far, nothing has managed to penetrate the shields.
    Why do you think that being older than somebody else means that you deserve their respect? Isn't respect something that needs to be earned?
    No, I'm not part of a cabal. What are you referring to, specifically? Who is "hysterically" defending a status quo? Which status quo are you complaining about, exactly? How do you think I'm connected into the conspiracy?

    I think you're losing touch with reality, if not already gone.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is because no one has proven me wrong yet in any of my generalizations where things have "common denominators".

    I believe this supports my posit.

    Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
    Can you cite a single physical object or function that does not have quantum as a fundamental universal property?
    Last edited: May 11, 2023
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    That question doesn't even make sense.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Of course it doesn't to you, because you cannot think of a single instance.

    I have supporting quotes.

    Loop quantum gravity: Does space-time come in tiny chunks?
    By Paul Sutter, published February 23, 2022

    Are there fundamental units of space-time at some unfathomably tiny scale?

    Where exactly am I "not even wrong"?
    Last edited: May 11, 2023
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page