IDoNotCare

Posts
102 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by IDoNotCare


7 minutes ago, joigus said:
Please, do give up on me. And stop hijacking other people's posts with your pseudoscientific mumbojumbo.
Nothing you've said so far has been substantiated.
I've heard of thread hijacking, I apparently got banned for it, but I haven't heard of post hijacking.
It has been substantiated. https://www.quora.com/profile/GarethMeredith5/log
29 minutes ago, studiot said:The Staunton Defence ?
Attempting to sidestep the question is inadequate.
I don't own a super computer nor do I know any computer scientists.
You're all a buncha neg repping simps
1 
4 minutes ago, studiot said:
Declaration is not demonstration or other form of proof.
I would would be interested if someone was able to write down totally mathematically what Prof Swinnerton said.
What do you think the mathematical statement for granite is?
If one extrapolates from my universola it is not easy or cheap in processor's energy requirements, but it is simple. Imagine being able to burn fat without dieting or exercising, or to learn without studying. That's what wonders can come of nanotech which requires we replace the biological components of our bodies which requires we understand how to snatch the electrons in our nerves and synapses which requires that simple yet vast mathematical regime I laid down.
0 
5 minutes ago, wtf said:
Ok. But the article you linked is not about Cantor's opinion about absolute infinite being God. They don't mention it, not even in passing.
Anyway we're past talking about set theory so let me know if you have any questions about the technical side. I can't really speak to the issue of computing God, except to say that I don't believe God (by any definition) could be computable; because computability has wellknown limitations, whereas God (by any definition) is unlimited.
I found an amusing Quora thread on the subject. Can God solve the Halting problem? I would say yes; and that's why God can't be computable.
You speak of God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Which cannot exist yet as there's too much heat in the universe to allow the vast majority of electrons to be entangled.
If you want to understand what entanglement is, two particles create GWs in close proximity, their GWs propagate faster than the particles like electrons can separate. So they're always entangled because the gravitational ripples were equal and opposite and shared the same initial conditions. The problem is most electrons, like the electrons in our synapses, have not had time in the universe to all entangle. If they were all entangled than we would be able to see through walls similar to how you yourself can see through to the other side of your nose when looking at it from an angle with both eyes. A qudit is a single electron, a qubit is parallel operations between two electrons as they both carry information about the atomic orbitals they propagate from to other atomic orbitals and also communicate instantly with one another about their positions and states via entanglement, a qutrit is when three communicate. Anyway in a boltzmann brain imagine all the electrons in the universe are entangled, that's a qugooglit. And from it's perspective the processing power of it's thoughts are equal in a universe than is collapsing, so there is a possibility of a mind thinking backward in time, that could create us at the end of our evolution as opposed to the beginning.
0 
8 hours ago, joigus said:
Sanity is a mental condition.
A platitude is an unnecessary (on account of being too obvious to be useful) statement.
You really seem to have no clue, neither about what Eise is saying, nor about what you're saying yourself.
Your sentences really are a challenge as to how many inconsistencies you can fit into them per word.
Sanity is as illdefined as consciousness.
A platitude is just something you say. Like all philosophy.
I know what Eise was saying, he called me mental because I said sanity is an axiom. He said my statement was a philosophy because I said it wasn't. He was just antagonizing me as I said.
You're also just antagonizing me. Either better comprehend what I wrote or I can't help you.
9 hours ago, Area54 said:That's good. When can we see the graph?
It's in Kurt Mueller's locked topic in speculations
10 hours ago, studiot said:So ?
So mathematics can define things those words he said cannot even come close to. Whereas you said it couldn't even be stated with mathematics which is false.
5 hours ago, cladking said:then I don't believe we'll ever have enough knowledge to quantify anything at all.
ref
The difference in time particles (4D graviton topologies) can be interpreted as lp1*9^28=hG/c^3 >c^3=hG/lp1*9^28>c=cuberoot(hG/9^28lp1)
Place c^5 into denominator for hG/c^5 for lt0
It has a different rate so even the particles that combine at the central coordinate of the singularity then start evolving inbetween different ticks of a planck clock
This is the dark energy mechanism, which at certain angles is also the dark matter mechanism it's very slow but moves far very dilated
9^28 can be proved to be related to the planck density with mp~4.932*10^36*9^28kg/(4/3pi(1.6e35)^3)m^3 = planck density
For instance, in Newtonian cubical space, your 3D model for flat coms, it's just an angle, curved depth isn't actually on the paper, just flat depth. x^2+y^2=z^2 when we have x and y.
VS
For curved depth, however, as is the real natural world, we use the form
Quadrant 1:
where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x2) ;
C/p i= (y2) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,y3) ;
C/pi = (x4)
2C/pi = (y4)
Quadrant 2
where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x2) ;
C/p i= (y2) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,y3) ;
C/pi = (x4)
2C/pi = (y4)
etc...quadrant 3 & quadrant 4
If we want to express a curved depth as opposed to a flat depth (cubicles) we have to solve for z at f(x1)=(x5x1) and f(y1)=(y5)^2y1 [in the case of y5 we use the negative root] and then to create a second ring at a 45 degree angle from the first:
Quadrant 2:
where a=x5 and b=y5 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x6) ;
C/p i= (y6) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x7,y7) ;
C/pi = (x8)
2C/pi = (y8)
etc...
that is the difference between round and flat 3D space. Real space is neither smooth nor flat.
Only then can we put every other quanta on the surface of the central planck quanta and add or subtract depth from their respective diameters, more of how to do that in the aforementioned .net topic. If you want to pool break all of cause and effect since 13.8 bill years ago. Because that surface curves and the resulting surfaces curve into fractals. Space is neither flat nor smooth.
We have in today's world the true or false bit capacity to express all the points, numerically, in the universe and enough observational data to know how big the primordial smbh gravitons of lp0 have to be to create dark energy and dark matter acting upon the gravitons of lp1 and we know that the CMB was at t=380,000 years and was denser than today's universe by a factor of 1100 and the initial conditions were denser than that by another factor of 3000000 or so iirc (3 bill times current cosmic temps in kelvins) so you know that the observable region in the cmb and the golf ball in initial conditions was about 10e10 meters or so iirc which is apart of a primordial smbh that can be constructed in lp0 space and we know the range of primordial smbh sizes in cosmology so we just simulate all of them until we get the history right.
ref
(with correction of the radius in x(n+1)=xn+/(xn/r) is actually the average formula applied to 2C/pi and C/pi for the 45 degree circle slice of the sphere)
The average transformations of centers for these spherical strings and gravitons arbitrated by expanding (by 1/2 lp per tp) radii of gravitons taper off, for instance at tp=2 the center of a planck quanta sphere will be moved toward the center of the graviton whose radius that central coordinate inhabits, by 1/2 the distance between that central coordinate and the central coordinate of said graviton.
It should also be important to note that light is where two gws with equal pull meet from opposite directions and act on an object like a Lagrange point
*x(n+1)=xn+/(xn/r
Which is to say the center of an outer sphere, from the center most sphere which overlaps the outerversal singularity, is resting atop it's surface so is going to be wider or less wide (closer or further) from a God's eye perspective which can be changed as well.
So this is to say that in this 4D topology, which could be a VR as real as the universe and can be simulated because a true or false bit of information can contain many of these coordinates per second of processing, has two universes in it.
There is an older and more length dilated antihyperbolic universe, which is not going to be as accurate as the normal universe you put inside one of it's black holes that it renders soon after the sim starts, but even if every sphere is just crossing radii the gws will still drag everything similarly in the antihyperbolic universe and so this will be the dark matter and dark energy acting on our universe which goes from the singularity to the eh.
So the graph is not a hyperbola, it's a universola. Like a 4D mandelbrot set. Logically the big bang can't just occur as an effect without a cause. Here I just loop cause and effect infinitely like the chicken or the egg loophole.
2 
Notice Eise's posts are completely off the topic of the validity of philosophy and are purely structured to antagonize me based off of extranous statements made in the posts they are responding to.
On 8/20/2020 at 2:30 PM, studiot said:No.
Philosophers can think more widely than Mathmaticians, who are constrained by the rules.
Philosophers can perform rational thinking, not available in Mathematics.
BTW Newton was a (Natural) Philosopher (the old name for Physics).
Here is my favourite example of what I mean, written by Professor Swinerton of Nottingham University.
This deduction cannot be stated mathematically, but is a masterpiece of rational thinking.
The patterns of the thoughts behind that communication can be graphed mathematically.
0 
5 minutes ago, Eise said:
That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy.
 you state that only facts matter in life
 you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts
And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and nonfactual) mental jerk.
You really have no clue what you're saying do you.
3 
_{Here's the nuts and boltz, the real mechanics of it along with something you did not consider, the dark matter and energy as directional difference}
The difference in time particles (4D graviton topologies) can be interpreted as lp1*9^28=hG/c^3 >c^3=hG/lp1*9^28>c=cuberoot(hG/9^28lp1)
Place c^5 into denominator for hG/c^5 for lt0
It has a different rate so even the particles that combine at the central coordinate of the singularity then start evolving inbetween different ticks of a planck clock
This is the dark energy mechanism, which at certain angles is also the dark matter mechanism it's very slow but moves far very dilated
9^28 can be proved to be related to the planck density with mp~4.932*10^36*9^28kg/(4/3pi(1.6e35)^3)m^3 = planck density
For instance, in Newtonian cubical space, your 3D model for flat coms, it's just an angle, curved depth isn't actually on the paper, just flat depth. x^2+y^2=z^2 when we have x and y.
VS
For curved depth, however, as is the real natural world, we use the form
Quadrant 1:
where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x2) ;
C/p i= (y2) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,y3) ;
C/pi = (x4)
2C/pi = (y4)
Quadrant 2
where a=x1 and b=y1 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x2) ;
C/p i= (y2) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x3,y3) ;
C/pi = (x4)
2C/pi = (y4)
etc...quadrant 3 & quadrant 4
If we want to express a curved depth as opposed to a flat depth (cubicles) we have to solve for z at f(x1)=(x5x1) and f(y1)=(y5)^2y1 [in the case of y5 we use the negative root] and then to create a second ring at a 45 degree angle from the first:
Quadrant 2:
where a=x5 and b=y5 & a^2+b^2=C^2:
2C/pi = (x6) ;
C/p i= (y6) ;
(x1+y1)/2 = (x7,y7) ;
C/pi = (x8)
2C/pi = (y8)
etc...
that is the difference between round and flat 3D space. Real space is neither smooth nor flat.
Only then can we put every other quanta on the surface of the central planck quanta and add or subtract depth from their respective diameters, more of how to do that in the aforementioned .net topic. If you want to pool break all of cause and effect since 13.8 bill years ago. Because that surface curves and the resulting surfaces curve into fractals. Space is neither flat nor smooth.
We have in today's world the true or false bit capacity to express all the points, numerically, in the universe and enough observational data to know how big the primordial smbh gravitons of lp0 have to be to create dark energy and dark matter acting upon the gravitons of lp1 and we know that the CMB was at t=380,000 years and was denser than today's universe by a factor of 1100 and the initial conditions were denser than that by another factor of 3000000 or so iirc (3 bill times current cosmic temps in kelvins) so you know that the observable region in the cmb and the golf ball in initial conditions was about 10e10 meters or so iirc which is apart of a primordial smbh that can be constructed in lp0 space and we know the range of primordial smbh sizes in cosmology so we just simulate all of them until we get the history right.
ref
I
(with correction of the radius in x(n+1)=xn+/(xn/r) is actually the average formula applied to 2C/pi and C/pi for the 45 degree circle slice of the sphere)
The average transformations of centers for these spherical strings and gravitons arbitrated by expanding (by 1/2 lp per tp) radii of gravitons taper off, for instance at tp=2 the center of a planck quanta sphere will be moved toward the center of the graviton whose radius that central coordinate inhabits, by 1/2 the distance between that central coordinate and the central coordinate of said graviton.
It should also be important to note that light is where two gws with equal pull meet from opposite directions and act on an object like a Lagrange point
*x(n+1)=xn+/(xn/r
Which is to say the center of an outer sphere, from the center most sphere which overlaps the outerversal singularity, is resting atop it's surface so is going to be wider or less wide (closer or further) from a God's eye perspective which can be changed as well.
So this is to say that in this 4D topology, which could be a VR as real as the universe and can be simulated because a true or false bit of information can contain many of these coordinates per second of processing, has two universes in it.
There is an older and more length dilated antihyperbolic universe, which is not going to be as accurate as the normal universe you put inside one of it's black holes that it renders soon after the sim starts, but even if every sphere is just crossing radii the gws will still drag everything similarly in the antihyperbolic universe and so this will be the dark matter and dark energy acting on our universe which goes from the singularity to the eh.
So the graph is not a hyperbola, it's a universola. Like a 4D mandelbrot set. Logically the big bang can't just occur as an effect without a cause. Here I just loop cause and effect infinitely like the chicken or the egg loophole.
I hope that we can collaborate more in the future because I can sit down with you and actually graph this on paper and work with a 3D computer program. This needs a super computer though. You can reach me at cassarajj@gmail.com
0 
On 8/13/2020 at 10:07 AM, joigus said:
The problem with this is that is sounds sooooo much like a particular philosophy... You simply can't escape philosophy.
Break down the word into etymological pieces and you'll understand why.
Yes you can.
Sanity is an axiomatic platitude, as is the notion of subjective and objective views as well as, for that matter, all philosophy and sensory perception. The only reality is numerical quantification. That which is not numerically quantified in sum, ergo, sum is an ontological fallacy. You have no points, I do have points, very specific points in a graph.
0 
Now those equations were for a curved 3D space, not a flat 3D space (ie https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/08/12/aspacetimesurprisetimeisntjustanotherdimension/amp/) linear and nonlinear calculus are two different things
0 
18 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
Was that supposed to be a joke?
No. And btw, your collective little antisexual sausage fest agenda is about to kick the bucket for real.
0 
On 7/22/2020 at 7:47 AM, joigus said:
I'm testing my first poll today. I've scanned for similar topics but wasn't able to find collocations "good philosophy" or "bad philosophy".
Especially if your option is the third one, I'm very interested in your criteria, exceptions, and so on.
Thank you very much.
All philosophy is useless. What's the point? No, mathematically where are the points that make the laws of nature. Ontological questions are scientific not philosophical they can be mathematically pinpointed of course morality is subjective to benefit the dull creature who didn't understand those coordinates
0 
Everything I said was coherent. It was grammatically correct, the spelling was correct. You just disagreed with the idea of a eutopia.
0 
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
Which is blogging. A discussion is when you say what you're thinking, and then listen to what others actually think, instead of guessing. This is a discussion forum.
Well at the very least I'm included first in my perspective of "everyone" assuming others are similar to me biologically.
0 
When I say 3D here's the context
The radius in x2=x1((2(x1))/r) is actually the average formula applied to 2C/pi and C/pi for the 45 degree circle slice of the sphere
0 
9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
The people who told you this ranting style makes your arguments more interesting were wrong. Even poetry is obnoxious when it's always turned up to 11.
I'm just saying what everyone is thinking
2 
Just now, Strange said:
And where g is G
Right, you know more than you're revealing, even regarding what I know. This relation is just for the different time dimensions, we are not in the pi curves of the single frame 3D topology for those spherical string theory yet, and of course as a wave quantum gravity is also related to those framerates
0 
Just now, Strange said:
As you are unwilling to say what you are dividing we can only guess
Well as sqrt(hg/c^3) is LP sqrt(hg/c^5) is lt where h is reduced plancks constant
You kinda just tricked me into indirectly giving away the equation I ran I you put two and two together
0 
Just now, Bufofrog said:
Why would you do any of this? Is there any point? Is there any bottom line to this at all?
Digital immortalization, without uploading which doesn't preserve the subjects continuity of consciousness because it's not the same electrical activity involved in said live subject's neurochemical interactions
2 
40 minutes ago, MigL said:
This last post brings up a very important subject.
What are the parties proposing about the problem of mental illness ?More and more Americans are angry at the world.
This misplaced anger keeps them from functioning as productive ( and civil ) members of society.
A lot of them seem to think that anarchy is the solution, when actually it is the rule of law that is protecting their sorry asses.
In an anarchist, "might makes right" society they would have no protection by the law, and would be ruthlessly taken advantage of by the stronger and more powerful.I didn't say I wanted anarchy I said I wanted a more openly sexualized and nudist and free public service and a resource based moneyless society where basic needs are provided and we're not misguided into fat virgins by dollar bills that are inflating into infinity worthlessness and people are being thrown on the streets by armed thugs called the feds for not supporting some abstract commune of old elephant riders
3 
Why would I divide LP by c^5?? LoL 😂
0 
The video was explaining rapid acceleration. Which is normally atypical for ion drives as ion drives are only the fastest because they accelerate over a longer period of time but if the craft being accelerated by ion propulsion is just a box or net of nanorods only a few atoms across, although the rods could be very long per length as opposed to that atomic width, it's weight will a single grain of sand and the ion propulsion would be both rapid and sustained for log periods of time for more top speeds after total acceleration approaching or perhaps breaking c I dare say if the ions being shed are in a faster relative time than that of the craft it can experience micro acceleration spurts in less than a planck time
0 
Oh yes I forgot the square root (though not in the equation). 9^28 * LP is the numerator like I said
Over c^5 for lt of course but that is irrelevant for equalling the lp for the numerator in the equation it only becomes relevant again when comparing speeds of light.
The denominator of course was the wavevolume of the redshift photon
0 
2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
Looks to me that the point of this thread is for you to play around with numerology. Anyone can put random numbers together to get a result they want, it doesn't mean anything.
No it is regarding constants, and discussing what happens to those constants beyond observability (singularity) it's not numerology at all I'm dealing with specific values based on constants
0 
2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
? A photon can have any wavelength.
Redshift*
About 3.5e7 m to be plugged into the r for the volume formula
Or a length of 7e7 m
It's beside the point as all mass elementary particles like quarks have shorter wavelengths although a bottom quark will be close to 9^28th the redshift for its wavelength close to a planck particle (micro bh)
You know the saying "what is the point?" Well the pointlike coordinates in the pi curves of this pool break are the only points that matter. Every conversation that contains any meaning must lead to the ontological line of questioning.
0
Is there such a Thing as Good Philosophy vs Bad Philosophy?
in General Philosophy
Posted
You're obviously one of the fools I systematically and physically demolished on mainstream hacking a dead forum to spite me with negs. Which would explain why I haven't gotten a single pos.That's pathetic though! Because you didn't unlock ultra instinct and your dojo sucks you're gonna hack a dead website.