studiot

Gosh so did we over here. I remember that. +1 Now we have the Tik Tok, Twitter and other well researched and corroborated media instead.

Whilst I don't see how any of your response is on topic, it isn't even self coherent. I wasn't aware that Claudia Kempfert worked for the BBC propaganda department. Do you have any evidence for this claim ?

Is the real reason for this thread to continue to deflect questions as to what this famous disaster of yours is ? Here is a quote from today's BBC News of something that may be similar.

Do you never blow jokes out of that trumpet (cornet I think, but I am no expert) of yours ?

We don't see evidence of time but see instead change which we assign a time factor. Aging is one of the things we see but can be reversed without any of the other signs changing. And I'm just another part of the physical world, as we all are, another 'node' as it were. You remind me of the Sunday preacher who starts with something innocuous, like 'as I was spreading the marmalade on my toast' and extrapolates directly to whatever brand of religion he peddles, hellfire and damnation / benevolence / whatever in your response to other folks. He inevitably ogneroe / dismisses any other opionions as though they did not exist and simple repeats his nonsense claims. I asked you who 'we' was and made it quite plain that I did not wish to be included in your 'we' - whoever they were and even offered a reasonable polite comment as to why I held that view. The first words of your response were to repeat the assertion 'we...'

What a good idea and example of lateral thinking. +1 Take an immediate lateral flow test!

I think this nonsense thread has shown itself unworthy of General Philosophy and note that the door to speculations and lid of the trash can are wide open.

Interesting, although I would place the output of reasoning as a conclusion and say that logic is more concerned with 'truth values'. +1

Examples are always good, though I'm not sure about the first ones as you can make a fictional character do anything. But thank you for reminding me of Godel's story. +1 Well since fiction can be logical, why not ?

How does that work and why is it compatible with what you said before ? Do you think the only purpose/use of logic is validation ? Otherwise that's pretty close to my own view, except that I would add in the following. In logical thinking you are comparing with some external (logicians claim universal) standards. In rational thinking you are comparing the internal relationships/standards of whatever is under scrutiny. External standards are unneccessary. Both these these forms of thought can be used together. Sometimes it is difficult to separate them.

That would suggest you don't accept that you can apply any of these thought processes to non real or abstract things (like Harry Potter). ??

I don't think we know enough about the composition of the minor elements deepr down (the mantle) laet alone in the core. Here is the currently the mostl reliable information for the crust fromthe lates edition of Greenwood and Earnshaw "Chemistry of the Elements" I have highlighted gold whose symbol is is Au

Folks often throw in as justification It's logical that It's rational that It's reasonable that It's sensible that And other terms I haven't thought of Well most of the topic is in the title. But there are a few other words that are also used so they should be included in the discussion.

To the best of our knowledge (source Cambridge Handbook of Earth Science Data) For every silicon (ie rocky) atom in our solar system there are 25,000 hydrogen atoms (mostly in the Sun) and 0.0000002 gold atoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City) Unless they rebuilt it. Funny that you should choose this example, of all the possibilities. But swansont and I have pointed out more fundamental problems with your proposition, to which we would be grateful for answers.

I posted this reference in another thread, to recent information about the New Horizons results.

Who is this we ? I see lots of evidence everywhere I look, as I believe do most folks. In fact I find it difficult (though not impossible) to find evidence of phenomena that don't require time. You yourself, have offered plenty of evidence in this thread and then dismissed it as 'an illusion'. Perhaps you are just an illusion, after all I have never seen you.

A couple more points have occurred to me on further reading. 3. You can embed an object of lower dimensionality in a space of N dimensions. So you can have line in 2, 3 or more dimensions and it is still a line. But you cannot do it the other way round. A 3D object will not fit into a space of only 2 dimensions. Now I see what you are saying about a 4D object 'passing through' however that appears to me to contain a logical inconsistency. In order to have a 4D object and for it to move so that different 3D sections appear in the 3D space you must also have 4 dimensions. 4. You appear to have 'fitted' you equations to observation with no foundational justification. It is a fact that I coulod take any bunch of (random) points on a graph and fit an infinite count of different curves passing through those points. You need the foundational justification as to why Nature selects your particular equation set over any other.

I have not yet had the time to study the detail of your proposal but a couple of points which I would like clarified stand out. Did I just mention time ? You appear to be introducing a fourth spatial dimension. What does that do to using 'ct' in modern treatments of SR ? I note your statement that Montanus studied the effect of different combinations and numbers of both spatial and temporat dimensions. A good development of the mathematics of what happens and why we choose the option we have appears in Eddington's book on the subject. I suppose it depends upon your meaning of the word 'classical' but I cannot agree that: You will find a full treatment in for instance Sommerville's "An Introduction to The geometry of N dimensions". There is lots more particularly if you move to what is known as 'algebraic geometry' By all means propose that the physical world does not conform to our abstract mathematics - There are. after all, well known differences. But then you cannot (directly) apply the theorems and results of this mathematics to your proposals, you will need to develop your own.

Actually I think it is worse than just plain old meaningless. It is triply redundant meaningless. 😉

You know, this is a really interesting game of Who can make the most irrelevent post to the topic ? Last night I was struck by an interesting observation in number theory. What is the next number after 25 ? Suprisingly the answer I came up with was 24 ! Any ideas how that can be ?

Tell me, Do you know of anyone who has won any lottery by contradicting the organisers when they publish the winning numbers and say to that someone. "We're sorry to tell you that your speculated numbers did not match our list." ?

The trouble with repeatedly contradicting instead of listening is that others eventually give up trying to be helpful. This applies most especially when you contradict things I did not say, in a 'reply' to something I did say. Go well with your thoughts, I will try to remember not to bother replying to your next 'speculation'.

I meant to add the following to my last post. You will clear up that problem for yourself when you stop thinking about the electron - nucleus system having a magnetic field and start thinking about the system in an external magnetic field. It is the interaction of the charge with the external magnetic field that is important. Oh and did I mention that the magnetic field is external ?

The main problem you are having with "spin" is related to the fact that you are reading the word spin and trying to use the properties of mechanical spin which is an entirely different property from quantum spin. You are also persisting with mixing up macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter. I believe you have already rejected my (friendly) warning about this. Not a warning that this will get you into trouble with the moderators, but a warning that your guesswork will founder on these misconceptions. There is no simple theory to develop quantum spin form more fundamental principles. Using angular momentum for a point charge or small charge, rotating about its centre, leads to a quantity called The Bohr magneton This development is in agreement with observation. However attempts to use a similar development for a small (-ve)charge rotating about another equal or greater charge will not agree with observation, by a factor of 2.00023. You should look up gyromagnetic ratio or Lande g factor . This g factor is one of the best examples of where experimental observation overrules theory. Already in this thread in this thread, I have offered a few very important terms for you to look up. Did you look them up ?