Prof Reza Sanaye

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've not given you a neg rep, but they are an excellent source of understanding... But thank you Prof, are you using google to translate between our language's? 

 

I am using google to get my own thoughts corrected by others in case they are wrong  

AND : to push out over-conventionalism in matters of doing and interpreting science , and humanities .....

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

How about we return to the topic, and not post otherwise

 

Dear Moderator ! 

Your sentence is absolutely right. 

The reason why I wrote that statement is that "Interlocutors" almost totally disbelieved the feasibility of such a object of speculation. 

Now , to return back to the topic itself , I am to make mention of the fact that any conglomeration of matter , especially in the condensed format , AND : under next-to-zero-Kelvin conditions , possesses the capacity to slow down photons that are moving in its own manifold. Outside of  the said manifold , light has the velocity with which to stunt contravariant tangent fields ( of tensors).And , as a result , to keep original velocity. . . . .  . .

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why surmise? Why not review the 8 pages of evidence? This is a science discussion forum.

 

I didn't claim you "said" it, I asked if you meant to encourage fredreload down a path known to be bad. Why else would you be claiming his idea is feasible, and that the members are picking on him? I don't understand your argument with our attempts to falsify an idea, and I'm asking for clarity.

Because teams under me are ACTUALLY doing something NOT identical , but very similar to what he is inclined to achieve . ..  . . . .

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Closing on 1000 posts and 5 years here; that’s hardly a newcomer. And there’s plenty of quality science given in response to dubious claims. The main issue is that the feedback wasn’t incorporated into the discussion. 

 

I appreciate your hard work on directing members to the best path of argument all these years with all your posts , Dear Sir . .... . 

I am quite unwilling , however , to take my words back....

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

ohh, I give up...

You have written  MANY  deep worthy unassailable posts in this forum , , , ,, 

I appreciate you for them all  

You certainly   ARE  a  professional methodical thinker ...  

I am grateful to you for this , too  .... 

I hope I shall learn more & more from you the way I have learned up till now from you . . . . 

I don't mind others or even you yourself coming in and starting giving negatives to sheer gratefulness 

Others calling me audience or they being my audience or interlocuters or whatever they have done to you or to me 

I am just appreciating you forthright for what I've learnt from you . . .. .

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest.

Are we supposed to encourage him to pursue a path we know will fail? How cruel of you!

I am a psychologist. my strong surmise is that you are wrong , I'm afraid , , ,  ,, , , ,, 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

One of the truly beautiful things about science is we don't have to bother with sentiments like this. It's easy enough to see, after 8 PAGES of "picking on newcomers" (what irony), that the idea as presented is NOT feasible. It's been explained over and over again EXACTLY where fredreload is mistaken. How you could view that as anything but scientific professionalism and rigor baffles me. It's science, not a popularity contest.

I am almost sure that even this plain constructive criticism will receive lots of scoffing and negatives and so on and so forth .

I did not say that. You are distorting even a non-partial onlooker , too . .  . 

On 2/19/2021 at 3:08 PM, studiot said:

 

As you can see, members here are doing their best to help you by interpreting your unusual form of English.

+1 to Area54

 

Your general lack of response to such efforts is making communication unworkable, which will eventually lead to everyone giving up trying.

 

My lack of response ?  !!

It is not sci-fi  and/or  pop science  and/or  juvenile science . .. . None . . .. It  IS  feasible . .  .. . Problem is that here on this forum , very unfortunately , there are many who are here to spend time just scoffing at AND picking on newcomers like Fredreload . . .. . . I am almost sure that even this plain constructive criticism will receive lots of scoffing and negatives and so on and so forth . . . 

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

As @John Cuthber delicately suggests in his preceding post, the meaning of your post is not at all clear. I think what follows is what you meant:

Rather than looking directly at theist versus atheist, lets look at attitudes generated by theism versus attitudes generated by atheism. When we do this we may find fewer differences than imagined. It may even be the case that atheists have attitudes and behaviours not unlike those of a theist, because such attitudes and behaviours arise from the basic character of the human mind, not from the professed atheism or theism.

Does that match your meaning? If not can you attempt to clarify? Thank you.

Yes . . . . .. Very Dear Friend 

Thank you so much for your comment 

This is exactly what I meant there  ,  , ,, , ,

22 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Did you read that through before you posted it?

Yes / Sir 

I read  it twice before reading it . . . ..

On 2/12/2021 at 2:10 AM, md65536 said:

I'm not seeing your point at all. Maybe you can explain, why would a religious person not believe in atheism? Is that similar to what you're asking? Can you describe the analogous point to the one you're making from that perspective, or if it's not analogous, what's the difference?

If instead of focusing on positions, specifically focusing on the position of an atheist versus the position of a theist, if instead of doing this, one concentrates on the mental attitudes procreated as a result of the differences in these (two) positions, then such differences turn out to be per se  not exactly so clear to their claimers. You can even conceive religious-like mental activities whose close connections to their ant-thesis of any brand of non-deism, proves to be properties of the mind itself RATHER THAN POINTS ATTAINED FROM ATHEISM OR DEISM.  

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Excuse me but this sounds rather condescending towards your audience.

 

 

I am still trying to determine if there is a language barrier involved here, or if some sort of hoax is being perpetrated.

There is definitely a Prof Reza Sanaye listed in Paris.

'Pointy' could be a reference to point set topology poorly translated from Farsi or French.

The rest of the oddly structured English could also be a reference to something I have been playing with and recently mentioned here, which I see as missing from basic set theory and is currently called 'overlap' in the English speaking world.

I look forward to a resolution of this quandrary.

I quote from Internet :

In quantum mechanics, the variational method is one way of finding approximations to the lowest energy eigenstate or ground state, and some excited states. This allows calculating approximate wavefunctions such as molecular orbitals.[1] The basis for this method is the variational principle.[2][3]

The method consists of choosing a "trial wavefunction" depending on one or more parameters, and finding the values of these parameters for which the expectation value of the energy is the lowest possible. The wavefunction obtained by fixing the parameters to such values is then an approximation to the ground state wavefunction, and the expectation value of the energy in that state is an upper bound to the ground state energy. The Hartree–Fock method, Density matrix renormalization group, and Ritz method apply the variational method.

Any discourse in terms of indivisible components is linked [mostly] by a relation term as to the molecular propositions according to function(al) which governs the correspondence UNIVERSALS. Under such circumstances, conformity with the nature of things in themselves has become something of Problematic as far and as long as properties of matter, space, time, (and spacetime) are not logicized without axioms of borderline connecting-latticed bifurcations as connectivities to, say, the matter itself versus abstractions like spacetime. Analytical modalities of motion and acceleration in real space are, thence, not mere dimensionalities measuring within the very same system. For example, spaces studied by mathematics, if metrical, allow themselves to turn topological in cases where the transformations on the part of these spatial things can, in some way or other, affect the connectivity lattices in shape and size [thus: to disturb (initial) measurement].

In cases where the betweenness of the lattices remains undisturbed through the process of transformation, then mereological symmetries tear in the same logical spaces. It is only here that a certain locality in logical space might be given by the sense of LINEARITY inside an equation term.

Later, such mapping of relations between being of the beings and being of measured milieu (the same time, space, matter, and spacetime) brings in what makes the notion of empty/filled linearity proper to perspectival "moments" of the Mathesis symbolization (re-)presenting them to us.

On 2/16/2021 at 2:28 AM, mathematic said:

Sorry!  Completely strange to me.

I shall do my best to explain to you what my first and second assistants (Pooria Solhjoo and Mohammad Mohammadi) have brought out from their respective teens (ie, mereotopological physical chemistry team AND mereological physicalistic probability team) throughout the past fortnight. I personally surmise that this will be of no little help to you in propounding [to others also] what is meant by these titles.  

Regarding the essence of space as 'pointy' has infinitely many zero dimensional matrixes whose closed regions can and, at the same time, cannot be smaller than themselves. The categories of mereotopological consequences arising from such alternatives absolutely unique in themselves are indications of the fact that throughout entities, even yet all through boundaries, there are holes whose type-categorical sets are not utilizable by ordinary means of first-order logics or even second-order logics: what we shall have to, then, do is not immediately directly resorting to set theory for propagation of chemical, biological, medicinal evaluation of Toposes thereof. 

Even aiming at providing a quasi-formal hierarchy in between set theory and higher ordered logics necessitates that topological concepts and principals be supplemented with in-between governing bifurcations for establishment of a lattice characterizing unity per individual integration. Since the very notion of connectedness comes to be in plain mereological disharmony with wholes made up of components, so therefore, for theoretical/applicational justification of space-time cellulation in a rigorous manner, we establish BASIC relationships amongst the primordial cells themselves. 

Of great importance here are the boundaries whose level of connectivity stands in between nearly full isotropy and much less rigorous propositions of anisotropy in line with the natural system (chemical, biological, medicinal) on which we are working. The grade of formality, from some almost-immanent first-order logics to more able typifying higher-ordered statements, has to do with those axiomatic theorizations that lie at the true Problematic of spatiality.   

Those areas in which the wholeness of wholes is afforded by regionalization somewhere in the range of first-order logics to (much) higher-order logics [but not reaching up to set theory], stand to be nominalistically bifurcated and multi-furcated alternatives to set theory AND point-set topology.

Where wholes exist, they are thus material: they are made of material stuff.... they are not, thence, dimensionless. By the abovementioned principal of supplementation, lattices arising from such material stuff are cut down arbitrarily into thousands of triangulation cellulations whose dimensions accord with the matrices defining them and whose number goes with the level of pixelation accuracy desired.            

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Anyone with active suicidal thoughts is believed to not be of "sound" mind.//ZAPATOS

Excuse me ! 

I am a certified psychoanalyst . ..  

Your statement is not universally true . .. 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

LOL, what are you going to do; wish me to death?

"I got up half an hour before I went to bed"... 😉

I wish U the best of wishes. . . .. .Shall live  // by the help of Almighty Jesus // to be 101 Yrz old . . . .Even if only Iv gottN lots and lots 2 do with U in some of the most advanced branches of theoretical-applied knowledge . . .  

We'r gonna patent a dozN patntz . ...  

As   U   wish   !!

Dimreepr said to me  :  

Indeed, at last we agree. 

Surely we do agree on many more things than you might right now guess : When I introduce nearly the whole of my teams' post"modern methodologies .. .  . . .Hhmmm   ??????

New methods for statistical mereology of countless different variables are provided. Unlike many other traditional statistical techniques, the most distinctive characteristic of these modern approaches is that no claims are taken as to the existence of the wave function of the random collection being evaluated. In addition, the suggested protocols do not generate uncontainable errors during their topologisation. The efficacy of these approaches is demonstrated by simulation results with extended and reduced confidence intervals having different probability distributions of Toposes.

The right to commit suicide ought not to be taken away from mature citizens. Consultation houses have to be established especially for this purposes to give Pause and Reason enough to the suicidal(s). There is even no reason why they should not be assisted in doing it "perfectly". However , with the statistics indicating that at least two thirds of suicidals committing actual suicide become repentant [very] soon after that ( ie, before their final death) , a moratorium is of vital importance before somebody takes their own life....

And how would that go? I usually think what I think. I do not sort out what I'm going to think in advance.....  

{ Joigus -- asked me--around 13 hours ago } 

Well , you are a "spontaneous" thinker , Sir ...... 

I myself am more or less like this........ 

Sometimes people ignore( or : force themselves to forget about) this IMMANENT manner of thinking ......... 

they see / then they deny what they have realized 

This is unfortunate transcendence from observable "seeings" ........Going into higher r or lower hierarchies ....... Which is pest to an objective mind . ......And , is , of course , revocable/removable 

Sort of Otherism  

Especially towards new-comers ......

there is no Crazy Avatar involved .......... 

There are , instead , fresh modalities of scientific thinking ; though  U  have unfortunately  decided to ridicule it , to apply the language of foolery satire, Dear Sir ......... 

but again I feel I have to thank  U  for your attention : reading my material and bothering to write ...........

Yes / Sir 

Many thanks . . . . .. Interlocutor is a better word  .  . . . . . 

So, no actual example, then? 

You have DECIDED to think so . . .  .

Yes , Lady , I have read three books on this school . .. .Am I allowed to know what your point is  ???

WTF are you talking about?  (dimreepr)

Excuse me  . . .. I have the bad habit of NOT engaging with   swearing+bad language ...................

And : 

That I should much better be face to face with my audience on this site and on the other 8 sites to TEACH+LEARN 

and : 

that I BE AWARDED all but  LIMITLESS number of posts // instead of just only 4-5 per diem . . . 

Yes/ All my Dears ! 

All Ladies & Gentlemen !  

As you yourselves are gradually coming in the know , it's a highly exciting , very broad investigative field of "doing science" . . . . I am so glad that you are so affably with me . .. . .