# Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

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.

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.
The density is a resultant from the state water is in. It obviously does not determine it.

The state (phase) is determined by the extent to which the molecules have sufficient thermal kinetic energy to break the various types of bonding between them.

The density is a resultant from the state water is in. It obviously does not determine it.
Yes, and the state the water is in is a result of prevailing temperature.
Melting and freezing
Jun 22, 2014 — Adding heat can cause ice (a solid) to melt to form water (a liquid). Removing heat causes water (a liquid) to freeze to form ice (a solid).
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz › resources › 608-mel...

Water and ice

Jul 19, 2007 — When the water temperature reaches around 0°C, the molecules stick together and form a solid – ice. Even in this solid stage, the molecules are ...
The state (phase) is determined by the extent to which the molecules have sufficient thermal kinetic energy to break the various types of bonding between them.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz › resources › 1008-w...

#### Attachments

557 bytes · Views: 1
2.9 KB · Views: 1
557 bytes · Views: 1
Judging by your questions it is clear to me that your approach is not working.
What kind of observation is that?
Not asking questions is the better approach?

I’m only posting to add that I absolutely adore alliteration, so the thread title caught my eye.

What kind of observation is that?
Not asking questions is the better approach?
You said you "you understand most science."
I pointed out where have profound misconceptions of science.
When I say profound I mean at the very basic level.
Things like wavelength and frequency.

Yes, and the state the water is in is a result of prevailing temperatureOTE]

.

What's the relationship and what are the key factors?
The amount you have to Google will give you an indication of your level of understanding

The density is a resultant from the state water is in. It obviously does not determine it.

The state (phase) is determined by the extent to which the molecules have sufficient thermal kinetic energy to break the various types of bonding between them.
As I see there are further - not specially informative - contributions on this topic, let me add a bit.

Temperature is proportional to thermal kinetic energy. So to say a phase change is due to temperature is a less fundamental way of describing what happens.

To elaborate a bit, the equipartition theorem states that the mean kinetic energy in any one of an ensemble of molecules' degrees of freedom is 1/2 kT. (k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the absolute temperature.)

So in the simplest case, in a monatomic gas, which has no rotational or vibrational degrees of freedom, there are only 3 translational degrees of freedom (x, y and z directions) and the relation becomes K.E. (ave) = 3/2 kT.

It is more complicated for diatomic gases, as there are then also 2 rotational degrees of freedom and one vibrational degree. However these may or may not be active at a given temperature, due to quantum effects, since a certain minimum amount of energy is required to excite them from the ground state.

The probability of bond breaking, which is what is involved in phase changes, is clearly related to the kinetic energy of the bound species. So it is more insightful to consider the kinetic energy than just temperature, as the latter is a bulk property whereas the former leads you to consider what is going on at the molecular level.

Last edited:
What's the relationship and what are the key factors?
The amount you have to Google will give you an indication of your level of understanding
You don't get to ask that. Question is if my original posits true at some basic level .

You don't get to ask that. Question is if my original posits true at some basic level .
I wanted you to talk about pressure and temperature and possibly mention H bonding. There is a reason for instance why water as a solid is less dense than the liquid phase.
There is a reason why it is difficult to make a cup of tea whilst scaling Everest.
This is not degree level or anything very deep, you do H bonding at A level (16-18)
This is an example of a van Der Waals force.

Exchemist gave a more advanced treatment obviously and to illustrate these concepts you DO need the knowledge and training.
If you do not have the training from formal school lessons then you pick up a text book and see how far you get. That is a way to get an understanding of the concept.

I am ending all of my posts to you in the same way.

Last edited:
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?
What's the difference between learning science and quoting other people who have learned science?

You really don't know?
I do not propose new science, I build logically on existing science and you just keep telling me that is what I should do.
What does "build logically on existing science" mean?

If you're not adding anything to existing knowledge, what are you "building"?

Do you mean you're using existing science to solve some specific problems that existing science can solve? How is it that you're able to use science without learning it first?
I have been doing this all my life.
You're pretending to expertise instead of developing some. What a waste of everybody's time, not least your own.
I scored 70% on a MENSA test, partly due to time pressures. I never studied for the test. Is that indicative of something?
Yes. It's indicative that you scored significantly below average on a test of "general intelligence". Your score puts your intelligence in the bottom 15% of the population (as measured by an IQ test).
The symbolic language is superfluous unless you want to produce a peer-reviewed paper.
No. Understanding the language of science is a corequisite for understanding science.
I seek good narratives, not calculus.
Physics and maths are not for you, then. Move on. Perhaps you can learn something useful about some other area of science. Although, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any science that completely ignores mathematics.
You expect calculus and to me that's no more than bookkeeping.
The problem you face is that, in practice, science likes to quantify things. It wants to be able to predict precisely how any given system will behave under various conditions. For that, maths is required. It's also required if you want to test whether any scientific theory is a viable explanation for a particular empirical phenonenon.
I like Roger Penrose's proposal of ORCH OR. It sounds right.
Your gut feeling is one thing, but you're completely unequipped to even start evaluating whether it is a viable scientific theory. For that, you'd need to learn some science. I mean actually, properly learn some science. Cutting and pasting other people's thoughts from place to place is not how you come to understand something.

Here's something I wrote earlier. You did not respond. Perhaps you didn't read it.

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.​

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.
Do you think that if you "understand the narrative" then you're in a position to evaluate it?

Do you think you can work out if a scientific paper full of maths contains errors or is error free, based on the "narrative" alone, without working through or understanding any of the maths?

How do you know when you're cutting and pasting an article that it doesn't contain nonsensical mathematics, or that it isn't full of mathematical errors?

You're basically telling us that if somebody spins a good yarn, that's good enough for you. You don't think you need to check whether it's a true story, as long as it's a story that sounds right?

I own a bridge you might like to buy. It's in Sydney. It's quite a famous bridge. I inherited it from my great great uncle. I'm willing to give it to you at a bargain price. But don't concern yourself about the maths; I'll gladly do it for you! All I need are your bank account details. Trust me. I'll handle the rest.
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'm completely mystified now.

Why
do you accept the validity and functionality of these sources? You admit you're completely unable to confirm their validity yourself.

You refer to "reliable sources". Tell me how you go about evaluating which sources are reliable. I'm fascinated to find out.
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.
Why do you think there's a "potential" that was responsible for the BB? Is there a "valid" source that you used to confirm that is the case?

Can you explain to me what a "potential" is, and how it might conceivably be responsible for a BB? What scientific theory that you understand suggests that such a thing is possible?

Has no "reliable source" found any of these "common denominators" you mention? Are you looking for them because all the experts have failed to find them? Or are you just looking for a "reliable source" that "sounds right" and agrees with what you'd prefer to be the case regarding the BB?

What's in it for you when you do find these common denominators you're spending so much time and effort looking for? You say you're not trying to advance science at all; you're just using existing science done by "reliable sources". Are you just trying to satisfy a curiosity you have about the BB, then? Are you trying to come up with a story you can tell yourself, which "sounds right"?
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.
I don't know what an "irreducible complexity" is. Can you explain?

You say it is your conviction that the universe did not arise from an irreducible complexity. Did it arise from a reducible complexity, then? Or did it arise from a simplicity rather than a complexity?

How is the number 1 a "singularity"? What do you mean by that? Do you just mean that the number one is used to indicate a single thing? (The word "singularity" has a technical meaning in mathematics, but you don't need to know any maths, do you? Oh, apart from the existence of the number 1, of course. So you don't have to worry about any technical meaning of the word "singularity". Let the reliable sources worry about it, instead. You can always cut and paste, if it becomes a problem later.)

You say "1 (singularity) is an irreducible value". What does that mean? Can you give me an example of a reducible value, so I can compare it to 1 (singularity)? Can you explain the difference?

You deduce that because 1 is an "irreducible value", therefore there must be a single common denominator that caused the BB. Is this an example of you building logically on existing science, then? Can you walk me through the logical syllogisms that led you from the premise "1 is an irreducible value" to the conclusion "a single common denominator caused the BB"?

Also, previously you said that the universe did not arise from an irreducible complexity. But here you're saying that the universe did arise from something to do with the irreducible complexity of the number 1 (singularity). So which is it? Did the universe arise for an irreducible complexity, or didn't it? And why did you contradict yourself, in the space of a single post?

I look forward to your detailed response.

Last edited:
Do you think that if you "understand the narrative" then you're in a position to evaluate it?
No, I rely on my inner logic to evaluate if it agrees with my general understanding of the universe.
I wanted you to talk about pressure and temperature and possibly mention H bonding. There is a reason for instance why water as a solid is less dense than the liquid phase.
There is a reason why it is difficult to make a cup of tea whilst scaling Everest.
This is not degree level or anything very deep, you do H bonding at A level (16-18)
This is an example of a van Der Waals force.
Was the comment that three states of H2O is due to the density of the molecules, true?
I am ending all of my posts to you in the same way.
I would much prefer to see actual discussion of a topic than get lectured on how to do my research and learning.

Also, previously you said that the universe did not arise from an irreducible complexity. But here you're saying that the universe did arise from something to do with the irreducible complexity of the number 1 (singularity). So which is it? Did the universe arise for an irreducible complexity, or didn't it? And why did you contradict yourself, in the space of a single post?
The symbol 1 does not describe complexity. It is a singularity.

Dimensions
A point is a zero-dimensional object as it has no length, width or height. It has no size. It tells about the location only. Only a single measurement is possible for a one-dimensional figure.
https://www.splashlearn.com/math-vocabulary/geometry/dimensions#

And AFAIK that's mainstream science.

You're pretending to expertise instead of developing some. What a waste of everybody's time, not least your own.
That is a lie. I have never pretended expertise. I have declared that most of my posts are probative and accompanied by more formal quotes explaing my (own) words, but even there you decline serious discussion. That's duplicitous.

Last edited:
Temperature is proportional to thermal kinetic energy. So to say a phase change is due to temperature is a less fundamental way of describing what happens.

Let's compare this to my source.

Temperature Affects Density
Heating a substance causes molecules to speed up and spread slightly further apart, occupying a larger volume that results in a decrease in density. Cooling a substance causes molecules to slow down and get slightly closer together, occupying a smaller volume that results in an increase in density. Aug 16, 2023
https://www.acs.org/middleschoolchemistry/lessonplans/chapter3/lesson6.html#

I see no fatal flaw in my original post.

I wonder if there are any comments on this interesting presentation

Could These Numbers Unravel New Dimensions in Space?

I have declared that most of my posts are probative and accompanied by more formal quotes explaing my (own) words, but even there you decline serious discussion. That's duplicitous.
In my previous post (#91), I asked you a whole bunch of direct, specific questions about your claims. Instead of trying to answer any of them, you declined to have any discussion about them.

I don't think you're in any position to accuse me of duplicity. You constantly decline all discussion when things start to seem too hard for you. When you find a question difficult, you tend to simply ignore it - pretend it was never asked. Or else you cut-and-paste something irrelevant, as if you can distract somebody into thinking you must have actually responded to the question you were asked. I'd say that kind of behaviour is not very honest. Wouldn't you?

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3720068, member: 261885"
Was the comment that three states of H2O is due to the density of the molecules, true?
[/QUOTE]
.....and temperature/KE and pressure and electro static forces between the molecules.

These things are not single statement explanations.

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3720068, member: 261885"
Was the comment that three states of H2O is due to the density of the molecules, true?
.....and temperature/KE and pressure and electro static forces between the molecules.

These things are not single statement explanations.[/QUOTE]
The first statement is, strictly speaking, in Pauli's "not even wrong" category. Density, like temperature, is a bulk property. You can't really speak of the density of molecules. But I suppose that someone being a bit lazy with language might say something like that, meaning "the number of molecules per unit volume". Taking that as the intended meaning, then it does not explain the states of water at all, so it's wrong.

The transition from solid to liquid involves the breaking of the hydrogen bonded structure of ice, which occurs when H-bonded molecules have enough vibrational energy to begin breaking the H-bonds apart and start rotating and moving relative to one another. In the liquid, they remain bound more loosely, with transient H-bonds and other van der Waals attractions keeping them together, while allowing them to move.

In the gas, molecules have enough energy to escape this looser bonding and occupy the entire volume of whatever container they are in. At any temperature above absolute zero there is always some proportion of molecules that have enough kinetic energy to do this, which is why there is always a vapour pressure above the surface of liquid water or even ice.

The boiling point is merely the temperature at which bubbles of gas can form beneath the surface of the liquid. For this to happen, the vapour pressure has to equal (or fractionally exceed) the total pressure above the liquid. That is why the boiling point of water drops with increasing altitude.

Note that the word "density" forms no part of this explanation.

I wonder if there are any comments on this interesting presentation

Could These Numbers Unravel New Dimensions in Space?

Another random subject...

In my previous post (#91), I asked you a whole bunch of direct, specific questions about your claims. Instead of trying to answer any of them, you declined to have any discussion about them.

I don't think you're in any position to accuse me of duplicity. You constantly decline all discussion when things start to seem too hard for you. When you find a question difficult, you tend to simply ignore it - pretend it was never asked. Or else you cut-and-paste something irrelevant, as if you can distract somebody into thinking you must have actually responded to the question you were asked. I'd say that kind of behaviour is not very honest. Wouldn't you?
You will not get an answer as we have moved onto topology now....