Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Oct 3, 2023.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    This is what I was describing in condensed form. ("tell us... in your own words.....")

    Allow me to quote from a source with better words than myself.

    Law Of Entropy Explained – Smart Energy

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics
    https://smartenergyeducation.com/law-of-entropy/
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2023
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,426
    Write4U:
    I have tried teaching you in the past, on several occasions. It never takes. In a day or two, or a month, you're always back to using the terminology in the same nonsensical way you started off with. So, it seems mostly like a waste of my time.

    Moreover, since you tend to just randomly spam cut-and-pasted bits and pieces of text from the interwebs in vague attempts to cover up your previous mistakes, it's hard to know where to start with you. You seem to be so lacking in any basic foundational knowledge or academic skills that attempting to get you up to speed on just about anything would be equivalent to tutoring you through grade school first. That might be fine if you were paying me, but you're not, and my time is valuable.

    I will often answer direct and specific questions you put to me - sometimes briefly, sometimes in more detail - but most of the time you seem to assume you don't need any help, because you think you already know everything you need to know. Also, you don't give any indications of wanting to learn anything properly. You have a very limited attention span; your mind seems to flit at random from one thing to the next, as you try to find mystical "connections" between essentially unconnected and random bits of science and fringe speculations.
    Why don't you try explaining your learning methods to us in your own words? A random youtube video about something unrelated to learning methods is unlikely to suffice for the job you want it to do.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,426
    Write4U:

    Case in point about scatterbrainedness. Pinball asked you a few straightforward questions. Here they are:
    And here are your answers. Let's see how you did.
    I mark this is as a FAIL. You couldn't explain why you mean by a simple word like "find". So you tried to answer the question with a question of your own. If you had any idea what scientists mean when they use the term "find", surely you could have applied that to deciding what you mean when you use the same term. But apparently, you don't know what you're doing when you think you're "finding" something.
    I mark this as a FAIL. And it was a simple Yes-No question!
    I mark this as a FAIL. Answering a question with a question again, which is a dead giveaway that you have no clue what you mean when you say "common demominator". Either that, or you do know what you mean but you're embarrassed to tell anybody else what you mean. Maybe you're worried they'll laugh at you if they find out what you mean?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2023
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,426
    Your constant misuse of the term. I already covered this in some detail, just a few posts above in this very thread, didn't I?
    Do you really think that if some other guy knows that a differential equation is, that means that you know what a differential equation is?

    Maybe this is a big part of your problem. You see that there are lots of web pages out on the interwebs, on which lots of people expound on various topics with an appearance of erudition or expertise. Because those people exist, and their writings are accessible to you, you wrongly assume that therefore you have somehow - by osmosis, perhaps - gained the same level of knowledge and expertise that those guys have, by proxy.

    This is delusional, Write4U. Cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand from one page on the internet to another does not made you an expert in the subject matter. At best, it only develops your expertise in manipulating the CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys on your keyboard.
    Bizarre.

    How could you possibly gain any idea of "how it works in general" (for anything), without needing to "know" it? Understanding something means knowing how the thing works in general, and knowing how the thing works in general requires some level of understanding of the thing.
    I think exchemist has it right. I think that, no matter what anybody says to you, you just want to fill in your time by stringing out the conversation. Apparently, you're past the point where you care whether you make any sense, and beyond caring if people conclude that your elevator might not be going all the way to the top floor. Is this just an attention seeking exercise for you? Or just a time filler? Or what?
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    So now you're going teach us what a differential equation is? Because, as has been established, you "know how it works in general", albeit without needing to know any maths?

    Do you think you're the expert on differential equations in this conversation, Write4U? This, despite my previous post, and similar posts from Pinball and DaveC, telling you where you were going wrong?

    Have you got yourself up to speed since then and surpassed us all, so that now you think you're in a position to teach us all the basics about differential equations, bijections and multivalued functions? You must have remarkable aptitude in that huge brain of yours; such a quick learner!
    Is this your own idea?
    So, that world is irrelevant then. Why did you mention it?
    That statement just sort of hangs in a void, disconnected from the rest of your post. Relevance?
    Time for another cut-and-paste definition? Got to keep that quota up!

    (Actually I suspect that you ran into this word while cutting and pasting a previous quote, and it stopped you in your tracks. You thought to yourself: if somebody calls me on what that word means, I'd better be ready with an answer, or I'll look stupid! Quick, grab the dictionary, again!)
    And we end with the customary Write4U non sequitur.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2023
  9. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    I actually made a mistake earlier, I meant factor not common denominator. Write4u did not notice. The "common denominator" is mentioned in the "Microtubules " thread too. I do not think he is interested in the science there either.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,530
    Good idea to file all Write4U's meanderings in one place.

    Back on the science (I'm loyally trying to extract some from this guff) I'm mildly amused to see that, after several days searching, Write4U has eventually found a site in which the phrase "law of entropy" does actually appear. However, as the quotes from this site show, it's a dodgy, run by people with shaky command of English who do not reveal who or where they are.

    I was however intrigued by one strange claim they make, viz. that 2nd law of TD can be expressed as saying that in any change within a closed system the potential energy always declines. Apparently whoever wrote this thinks that entropy is a measure of loss of potential energy. What can they mean? Is this a garbled version of the idea that thermodynamic potentials are minimised at equilibrium?
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    Then I am accused of word salad. I'll stick with the language that suits my purposes.

    btw. have you ever wondered what it is that I am researching. Note that I do not seek to answer any "hard questions", but am trying to build a library of "hard facts". IMO, this is sage advice from Tegmark.

    The puzzle has many pieces but Tegmark believes that not many pieces will be necessary to complete the puzzle.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    I read what I quote and I quote only if I understand the narrative that accompanies a scientific paper. I do not need to do the math.

    You completely misunderstand my position. I am not here to solve equations. I quote them from reliable sources because I accept their validity and functionality. I am not arguing with current science other than trying to find "common denominators" that are fundamentally related to the potential responsible for the BB.

    This is my absolute conviction: The universe did not emerge from a prior irreducible complexity and as 1 (singularity) is an irreducible value there must be a single "common denominator" which was causal to the beginning.

    And that causality was not in the form of a God but of a mathematical object.
     
  13. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    You do not science this way, you cannot learn science this way and you certainly cannot find out anything new this way.

    It would be like wandering around hospitals and hanging out with medics in the pub to try and find out which genes are responsible for pancreatic cancer.

    You learn science from text books, science that is already worked out and documented. I have said this at least twice now. Are you going to take this on board or not?

    What you said about the universe, common denominator, singularity etc is obviously nonsense.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    And I have answered this at least a dozen times that I quote from science that is already worked out and documented.
    What is the difference?

    I do not propose new science, I build logically on existing science and you just keep telling me that is what I should do. I have been doing this all my life. I scored 70% on a MENSA test, partly due to time pressures. I never studied for the test. Is that indicative of something?

    The symbolic language is superfluous unless you want to produce a peer-reviewed paper. My needs are modest, I seek understanding and learning symbols does not add to that quest. I seek good narratives, not calculus.
    You expect calculus and to me that's no more than bookkeeping.

    And trust me, judging from your advise, I understand a lot more than you think.

    You may want to check out my thread on " Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules? "
    I like Roger Penrose's proposal of ORCH OR. It sounds right.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2023
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    Another important idea that does not need symbolic language.

    The Physics Behind Schrödinger's Cat Paradox
    more....
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nger-erwin-google-doodle-cat-paradox-science#
     
  16. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    You have not answered this a dozen times from me.
    Schrödinger? What does that have to do with anything we have discussed?

    That you accept current science from researchers/ qualified scientists in the field is good.
    I assume you would not tell your daughter that her 21 week scan showed some anomalies?
    Or your uncles blood test indicated colorectal cancer right?
    Why are you thinking you can find things about the universe?
    Teams have been working on this for 100 years.
    Do you think you can add anything that the theorists can add? Or the researchers involved with WMAP, COBE or the HST or JWST ?
     
  17. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    Do you not think it is important to understand the science if you are going to quote it?

    How exactly do you, "build on existing science" if you do not understand that science?
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    I do not want to add to science. I want to add to my personal "knowledge" of science
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    First, I do understand most science. I have explained that if I understand the narrative, I don't need to know the calculus
    Second, read, read, read and catching up on my knowledge and understanding of science.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2023
  20. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    By "narrative" do you mean someone explaining something like special relativity with words? On a YT video?
     
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    I don't know which is worse, that you really believe you know 'most science' or you think you can fool people into believing that you know 'most science'.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,084
    I'll repeat the reason.
    "Another important idea that does not need symbolic language."
    Yes.
    I was a boy when I read one of my father's books on Einstein. The description of the Doppler effect was perfectly clear and was proven the same day listening to a passing motorcycle confirmed the "words".
    No symbolic numbers or calculations are needed to observe and understand the Doppler phenomenon.

    Note; with symbolic language I mean maths and symbolic strings, not plain English explanation of cause and effect.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    2. Difficult Language :
    Scientific language is very difficult language. It contains specific terms and symbols for communication which are not used in our everyday life. Difficult and unfamiliar words are usually used in scientific language. Only concerned person can understand the meaning of these scientific words and symbols. For example, Ag is symbol of silver, H2O is a formula of water.

    Do I need to know the chemistry of "the 3 states of water as gas (vapor), liquid (water), or solid (ice)?
    Tegmark gave a simple picture that explained the state of H2O is determined by the molecular density, simple, straight forward.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2023
  23. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    Judging by your questions it is clear to me that your approach is not working.

    You confused, wave, wave length, wave function, frequency, Quantum mechanics, entropy, thermodynamics and special and general relativity.
    A lot of those in one sentence.
    Just scroll back in this and the thread where this was pointed out to you.
    I have told you how to learn about these things correctly but you are arguing against this tried and tested method.
     

Share This Page