Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?


socratus
+1
#1
Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Another inane post by Israel Sadovnik/Socratus.

You have been banned from how many forums for posting

this unintelligent garbage? Yes you are a legend on the net
you even surpass our mate Preearth as I am pretty sure
you hold the record for the most forum bans.

At 68 you think you would have learnt how to communicate

or has the devil and your madness got to you?

Most on the forum here are happy to discuss almost

anything but the key is discuss.

So I will ask you one more time if you have something

to discuss tell us in CLEAR language.

I do not want to see another pile of drivel and quotes

masquerading as something meaningful.
Orac

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44488#Post44488
========…

For example I say:
Quantum Theory become clear and logical
then we take as a fundament T=0K.

Is this opinion ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?

===...
 
taxslave
#2
At the very least it is beyond most people's knowledge of science.
 
Kreskin
#3
What is T=OK?
 
55Mercury
#4
It's a struggle to understand your meaning sometimes, Izzy. If you put as much time into improving your syntax and studying contemporary vernacular as you do into quantum theory (which is a fetch in itself, at the best of common reasoning) then you'd be quite understandable, even if marginally less informed. heh heh

Say, you're not related to 0micron by any chance?
 
socratus
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

At the very least it is beyond most people's knowledge of science.

Maybe my knowledge for the XXIIc

Quote: Originally Posted by 55Mercury View Post

It's a struggle to understand your meaning sometimes,
Izzy.
If you put as much time into improving your syntax
and studying contemporary vernacular as you do into quantum theory
(which is a fetch in itself, at the best of common reasoning)
then you'd be quite understandable, even if marginally less informed. heh heh

Say, you're not related to 0micron by any chance?

1
Yes, my English must be much better
2
I tried to find 0micron's Profile but :
This user hasn't composed a public description yet.

Thanks to everybody
 
socratus
#6
I don’t think that to understand my ideas is difficult.
I try to explain my ideas as simple as possible.
For example:

Why we cannot understand Quantum Physics.

The problem is that physicists draw the Quantum Physics
with ‘ math point-particle’ and therefore they ‘kill the picture
of ultimate reality.’
Of course, physicists know very well that the particle isn’t a
math point, but any another model of particle brought difficult
which they could not solve. Therefore physicists prefer to think
about particle as a structureless point
===.
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’. The problem is that there are 5 or 6 ‘ string
theories’ in 10 or 11 dimensions .One theory is better than
other one. And they decided to unite them in one
‘ M-string theory’ . This theory is still in a cultivation.
=.
So, now we don’t know what elementary particle is and
therefore we don’t have the Philosophy of Physics.
=.
Is my opinion difficult to understand , is it ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?
=.
Socratus
 
L Gilbert
#7
Quantum Theory is easier to understand. But it's not all that hard.
 
socratus
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Quantum Theory is easier to understand.
But it's not all that hard.

Einstein said:

" Some physicists, among whom I am myself can not
believe that we should once and for all abandon the
idea of direct images of physical reality in space and
time, or that we should agree with the opinion that
a phenomenon in nature like a game case."
==.

Can we understand reality if we use from beginning a ‘ math point-particle’ ?
 
Nuggler
+3
#9  Top Rated Post
U = fo

?




Do we give a ****?
 
socratus
#10
Matter and Form .
=.
Wood is itself a matter.
Wood is itself a form, a geometrical form.
A cupboard made of wood is a real whole of form and matter.
Geometrical form and matter are 'grown together' in it.
No form exist without matter.
Nor can there be matter without form.
But in micro-physics, physicists took up another conception.
According to this doctrine matter does exist,
but the form is not a physical object.
The form is disappeared from the physical reality.
They works with a 'point'.
Question.
Isn’t physics a science of the matter, form, energy and motion ?
Aren’t all these subjects 'grown together' ?
Take away one subject and you have all modern paradoxes
in the physics.
=.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
 
karrie
+2
#11
Why would you come post another forum's arguments on here?
 
Niflmir
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post


For example I say:
Quantum Theory become clear and logical
then we take as a fundament T=0K.

Is this opinion ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?

Yes. It is unintelligent and garbage.

First, you state "Quantum Theory become clear and logical..." which has some bad English that I am willing to forgive, so I assume based on the rest of the sentence that you mean to say "For Quantum Theory to become clear and logical..." And the unintelligent aspect kicks in: to the informed, quantum theory is clear and logical. It is not very intuitive, but most people would not have the arrogance to suppose their intuition about the way things work hold on nanometer scale levels and below. There are some interesting philosophical aspects to quantum mechanics, but clarity and logic are not missing.

Next off, what is T? You write 0K next to it, so maybe you mean 0° Kelvin? Right off the bat you are just assuming context that nobody else shares. What are we supposed to take as fundamental? That the temperature everywhere is zero? That there are peculiar things about zero temperature? The second we already do and the first is measurably false. Heck, just buy a thermometer, you too can disprove this claim--in the comfort of your own home.

And that is just one sentence. In your longer posts, these problems just multiply. Lack of context, lack of overall coherence, and then bald assertions which are demonstrably false.
 
L Gilbert
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Yes. It is unintelligent and garbage.Lack of context, lack of overall coherence, and then bald assertions which are demonstrably false.

........... but quite funny sometimes.
 
Niflmir
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

........... but quite funny sometimes.

Well he asked, so I wanted to give an honest answer. I agree with your sentiment though. He doesn't seem to take himself too seriously, which is kind of refreshing, to tell the truth.
 
L Gilbert
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

Well he asked, so I wanted to give an honest answer. I agree with your sentiment though. He doesn't seem to take himself too seriously, which is kind of refreshing, to tell the truth.

He does seem to have a good grip on his ego, yep.
 
Niflmir
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

He does seem to have a good grip on his ego, yep.

Actually, it makes me wonder why people would ban him. Sure, some might see it as spam, but so many conspiracy theory nutters do so much worse, and then start yelling at people.
 
L Gilbert
#17
Soc was banned? That's odd to me, too.
 
Niflmir
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Soc was banned? That's odd to me, too.

Not from here, some physics forum apparently.
 
socratus
#19
We are setting limits on things ( for example: c=1, T=0K )
that we don’t have a clue about.
From these two parameters (c=1, T=0K ) was started
all modern speculations in Physics ( SRT, QT, GRT ).

==..
 
socratus
#20
Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.
=.
The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton.
Question.
Where did electron and proton come from?
Answer.
Electron and proton came from big bang.
Question.
Where the did big bang come from?
Answer.
The big bang was created when all electrons and protons
and all another particles were pressed into a singular point.
==..
If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are ignorant man.
=.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#21
That was a big press eh. I don't believe it. Religious nonsense from day one. It was the suck of all time in fact.

Todays unintelligent garbage becomes tomorrows best sellers,just ask Einstein or Hawkings
Last edited by darkbeaver; Sep 8th, 2012 at 11:08 AM..
 
socratus
#22
How an electron ( slower than c ) emits photon at c=1?

==.

' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that
of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only
about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for
illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm)
and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that
of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like
a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’

/ ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. /
==.


 
darkbeaver
+1
#23
If Rydnik wants to sell that book he'll have have to add the steam. How about sumptin like this, Fast scantily dressed photon assaults invalid electron, escapes with purse, Hawkings investigating, arrests expected soon.
 
Spade
+3
#24
Quan tum fizz six is ease year to un der stand than a smart fone. If won stud ease quan tum fizz six inn dis screte you nits, itz a breez! Itz like walk king a Planck.
Last edited by Spade; Sep 8th, 2012 at 12:59 PM..
 
taxslave
+3
#25
Still haven't figured out if it is garbage but DEFINITELY unintelligible.
 
socratus
#26
Dualism of particle.

Without Einstein's SRT we cannot understand
the dualism of elementary particle.

==.
socratus
 
Dexter Sinister
#27
We don't really understand it *with* SRT either, though SRT really has nothing to do with what I presume you're talking about, the wave-particle duality, that's a quantum-level effect that SRT doesn't directly address.
 
coldstream
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Matter and Form .
=.
Wood is itself a matter.
Wood is itself a form, a geometrical form.
A cupboard made of wood is a real whole of form and matter.
Geometrical form and matter are 'grown together' in it.
No form exist without matter.
Nor can there be matter without form.
But in micro-physics, physicists took up another conception.
According to this doctrine matter does exist,
but the form is not a physical object.
The form is disappeared from the physical reality.
They works with a 'point'.
Question.
Isn’t physics a science of the matter, form, energy and motion ?
Aren’t all these subjects 'grown together' ?
Take away one subject and you have all modern paradoxes
in the physics.
=.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.



I'm not sure if this is science, philosophy or poetry.. It is certainly parsed like the latter.

It seems to show some signs of an intelligence behind it.. but that does not mean it's necessarily intelligible.

 
socratus
#29
Time , Particles and Consciousness.
=.
We have biological consciousness and
we have consciousness on the quantum level

What is connection between biological consciousness
and the consciousness on the quantum level ?

What is role of time in this connection between biological
consciousness and the consciousness on the quantum level ?

What is happened with time in this connection ?
What can happen with time in this connection ?
1
Can we speak about biological and quantum consciousness
without particles (cells and em waves) ?
The answer is 'no'.
2
Can we talk about time without particles?
a)
According to Newton the answer is
'yes, we can talk about time without particles'
b)
According to Einstein the answer is
'no, without particles we cannot talk about time'

Paradox or puzzle ?
3
Does biological consciousness exist only in time?
Does consciousness on the quantum level exist only in time?
!!??
===..
socratus
 
55Mercury
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

Time , Particles and Consciousness.
=.
We have biological consciousness and
we have consciousness on the quantum level

What is connection between biological consciousness
and the consciousness on the quantum level ?

What is role of time in this connection between biological
consciousness and the consciousness on the quantum level ?

What is happened with time in this connection ?
What can happen with time in this connection ?
1
Can we speak about biological and quantum consciousness
without particles (cells and em waves) ?
The answer is 'no'.
2
Can we talk about time without particles?
a)
According to Newton the answer is
'yes, we can talk about time without particles'
b)
According to Einstein the answer is
'no, without particles we cannot talk about time'

Paradox or puzzle ?
3
Does biological consciousness exist only in time?
Does consciousness on the quantum level exist only in time?
!!??
===..
socratus



biological consciousness implies life
life regardless of duration exists from time A to time B
if time stands still, life stands still, biological consciousness stands still
conclusion? biological consciousness cannot exist without time

I believe Newton is correct, that time can exist without particles (necessary for biology)

though Einstein is also right in the context that if there is nothing around to detect it (life) then what is it, really? a second would equal eternity, and eternity would equal a second

perhaps this is the pressing point of life's beginning?

I wonder how God was doing in that eternal second before life evolved from time?

God equals the total energy of the universe.
Before matter there was only energy without time (the eternal second).
When God transformed Itself in part to matter (the big bang?)
the stage was set for time and life to progress/evolve
(not but a second ago)

The Holy Trinity: Energy/Time/Life


lol stupid fvcking edit feature
Last edited by 55Mercury; Sep 15th, 2012 at 04:57 AM..Reason: God made me do it.
 

Similar Threads

25
Garbage
by refiningmachine | Jan 20th, 2010
1
Anyone else think Rogers is garbage?
by Anonymous | Aug 12th, 2003