gravity

[Klaynos]

Not science.

[soundoflight]

INFORMATION PATTERNING

[Klaynos]

Still not science.

[md65536]

The appeal to "links" is usually reserved for those who parrot the ideas of others. For the most part such is not the disposition of the author of this thread.

 

 

However: I have posted much to the web. Such referrals will be forth coming( This due to the necessity of chronology of discoveries.)

 

However: This thread represents a "link" of sorts.

I think this post speaks volumes in this thread.

 

You've misinterpreted what Klaynos meant by "causal links". What I think he meant is that you must show how your theory links causes to observable effects in the real world, not how other work is linked to yours.

 

You have misinterpreted the word "link", expanded it to include other meanings, and then associated all possible meanings together. This is what you're doing with your theory. You are misinterpreting connections between things and looking for meaning where there probably is none. The "causal link" that you probably need, would be to show that these connections actually DO have meaning, perhaps with some physical predictions your theory might make, or something like that. I don't know how you could possibly do that, and I agree with Klaynos that what's presented here isn't science.

 

 

Synecdoche ( /sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/; from Greek synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous understanding") is a figure of speech in which a term is used in one of the following ways:

 

• Part of something is used to refer to the whole thing (pars pro toto), or
• A thing (a "whole") is used to refer to part of it (totum pro parte), or
• A specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class, or
• A general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more specific class, or
• A material is used to refer to an object composed of that material, or
• A container is used to refer to its contents.

 

 

 

 

Check out this "link": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization Some of the "links" at the bottom of that page may also be applicable to this thread.

 

 

 

[soundoflight]

Indeed! This thread will speak volumes on many relevant things related to science.

 

I did not misrepresent anything stated in the former post made by Klaynos. This is demonstrated by the following acknowledgements as to his meaning with regard to the use of the word "link":

 

" "links" ... reserved for those who parrot the ideas of others." ( for the most part..unless one is the progenitor of the "link")

 

"I have posted much to the web. Such REFERRALS (LINKS)…"

 

These statements ( for those who arent rocket scientists) indicate that though I was indifferent to HIS appeal to links ( as if validating arguments) I certainly understood his meaning.

 

Now for a reiteration of my extended usage of the word link:

 

" This thread represents a "link" OF SORTS.

 

"link" ..DEFINED..... "anything serving to connect one part or thing with another; a bond or tie..""an object, as text or graphics linked through hypertext to a document, another object, etc." "to connect by association,.."

 

These things being "cleared up" for the equationists verse those more logical and lucid in thought ( 2+2)...we will move on.

 

The material presented in this thread has and will continue to demonstrate ' observable' 'effects'…( special reflective effects resulting from the cause(light and energy) relative to the effect( "mass" reflections of lightand energy)) ….that begin to express principles and laws of the universe that are not only observable but demonstrate definitive relationships between information as going from one place to another.

 

 

 

The word link as defined by me is appropriate . Thus you infer ( as so-called scientists often do) that I stretch the meaning and relevance of the term. You also presumptuously say ( as so-called scientists do) that there 'probably are no' relevant connections and associations between what I am illustrating with what represents scientific logic. As well you state rather assertively that there is no real "meaning " behind what I am presenting. You equally absurdly seem to think that only a "link" would validate my postulates. You seem to suggest this by saying: " The "causal link" that you probably need, would be to show that these connections actually DO have meaning,…"

 

If one pays close attention to my comments as well illustrations they may come to realize the relevance of what I am presenting and postulating with regard to.

 

However you did say something that is both relevant to the discussions of the room as well as science. You state:

 

" perhaps with some physical predictions your theory might make, or something like that…"

 

If you pay attention to the comments and illustrations you will begin to see that this is what I am actually doing. However the comments and illustrations will become more refined and able to predict as we proceed.

 

I will not ignore this challenge. It is necessary relative to scientific methodology for us all to have such a resolve. Thus I will begin to demonstrate how these things can be "physically predicted." It would be more suitable to involve you in the process. Whatever you say in answer to some questions I will ask will provide the foundation for predictions I will make. We can test them together if you wish. After this worthy exchange and reciprocation both you and I will be better able to percieve as well understand the relevance of of what I am presenting.

 

Are you up for these collective scientific discussion(s), observation(s) and eperiment(s)s. I will preesume you are ( though I am not naturally presumptive) up for the exchange. With that "inferred" confidence as to your disposition I will continue with the discussion and will NOT relegate any comments or chalenges originating from others in the room.

 

Firstly:

 

Have you identified the 1st picture in the preceeding post?

 

Here is my prediction with regard to this picture. If the idiom " duck and cover" means what it means and it refers to someone "ducking" when another swings there arm..then the human arm will form the geometry of a duck. This is gauranteed to occur( the exact shape of a duck "eyes, beak, body, wings..and all" ) due to principles of information as communicated from one place to another and being observed by intelligent humans and assimilated into language systems.

 

Prediction: the geometric exact shape of a full duck will be found on the human arm.

 

Why? Because the principles of language ( verses science of language) garauntee that this will occur ( and does occur relative to everything in the physical universe as representing information as associated to other information and as explanatory) . The principles of mathematics and geometry will also be demonstrated as relevant ( when one does proportion and symmetry measurements of the duck..as represented on the human arm.) The principles of Idiom will also be verifiable as explaining relationships though not easy to percieve relative to perspective linguistic studies.

 

Thus

Prediction2):

 

The idiom "duck" ( referring to one stooping to avoid a blow from a fist attached to the arm) originated because intelligent humans ( perhaps more intelligent than modern humans as to spatial reasoning and thought processes) were able to discern that the human arm forms the exact symmetric/proportionate shape of the animal we know as a "duck". Thus when idioms were framed they utilized this symmetric (nature) relationship between the duck and "one swinging the arm" to frame an appropriate idiom. As if saying ( idiomatically implying)

 

"Here comes a duck" ( here comes an arm swinging at you") …duck!

 

Note: Where the duck is found represented on the arm is found anatomical terms for parts of these muscles .

 

Prediction: These muscles corospond to certain parts of the anatomy of the duck. Thus: The names of the anatomic terms for the muscles will phonetically corospond to the names of the duck anatomy. Or: Phonetics( sound) will tell us with "absolute certainty" that muscle terms will indicate exactly that a duck will be found on these combined portions of the human anatomy arm

 

"Sound" absurd………?

 

Perhaps when we experiment with these predictions( as we will categorically through the span of flora and fauna) we will see that the absurd will conform to the unambiguous.

 

Information patterning.

 

I will give you time to check these things out for yourself before I post these demonstratives.

 

Hint: rotate the image in picture 1.… 270 degree. Invert colors. You will see that this is a human arm.

 

The next picture( next post) will demonstrate this "information association"…. more vividly.

Edited April 23, 2011 by soundoflight

[Klaynos]

md65536 gathered my meaning correctly.

 

Just because things happen to look the same, if you look in a certain way does not mean they are in any way the same.

 

You're still not doing science or anything close.

[soundoflight]

I can produce as many different angles of the "duck on the arm" as there are pictures of arms in the world

 

Why?

 

Because a principle ( and a law) is something that is established. Patterns ( principles and laws of order and arrangement) were designed to be followed. Patterns represent associations. Nature is associated through consistent ( predictable- scientific) principles of design.

[Klaynos]

It's still not science.

[soundoflight]

It's still not science.

 

 

 

klaynos

sonyalk

sonyak

cynic

 

"a person who believes the worst about people or the outcome of events. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.

 

" skeptic, pessimist, misanthrope

 

 

"yak yak".........incessant idle or gossipy talk.

 

 

The incessant (ceaseless; unending) condescending remarks from self professed "scientists"

Edited April 24, 2011 by soundoflight

[md65536]

What then is the meaning of the name "So Undo Flight"?

 

undo:

 

2. To untie, disassemble, or loosen: undo a shoelace.

 

4.

a. To cause the ruin or downfall of; destroy.

b. To throw into confusion; unsettle.

 

flight:

 

8. An exuberant or transcendent effort or display: a flight of the imagination; flights of oratory.

 

Does this mean that your theory is unraveling?

 

Doesn't your theory hold that this interpretation is true due to some "law" or holographic truth of the universe? Just as a duck and an elephant can be found in any muscular arm, your very name spells out your theory's downfall.

Edited April 24, 2011 by md65536

[hypervalent_iodine]

So are we just rambling useless anagrams and definitions?

 

Here's one for you:

 

Science; noun.

 

Not what you're doing.

[md65536]

There's a video that reminds me of this thread:

 

http://www.seventeengallery.com/index.php?p=2&id=80&iid=1

The video is made as a work of art, and it has a moving effect in my opinion (though it's better with a soundtrack... I like playing this song quietly at the same time:

)... and yet, it is more rational and more "science" than this thread.

 

 

Both the video and this thread seem to be about "interpretations."

 

Your work is not valueless. Perhaps it is art. The images are certainly interesting and thought-provoking.

Perhaps it can be developed into something involving psychology (interpretation of imagery or maybe even neurotic pattern matching).

Perhaps philosophy, and the nature of reality vs the perception of reality.

 

But I repeat: In its current form, I simply see no useful conclusions.

[soundoflight]

What then is the meaning of the name "So Undo Flight"?

 

undo:

 

2. To untie, disassemble, or loosen: undo a shoelace.

 

4.

a. To cause the ruin or downfall of; destroy.

b. To throw into confusion; unsettle.

 

flight:

 

8. An exuberant or transcendent effort or display: a flight of the imagination; flights of oratory.

 

 

 

Not wanting to “steal the thunder” from orthodox science but:

 

“sound…of…light"( though not confined to:

 

“Thunder...... is the sound made by lightning. (..“b. To throw into confusion; unsettle.”). Lightening certainly can and does…”. cause the ruin or downfall of; destroy.”

 

Lightening and thunder ( SOUND relative to light ..and: as relegated by orthodox science) certainly represents “transcendent and exuberant” ..“display.” Those who are relative to lightening and thunder( sound and energy) can be compelled to “ take flight.”

 

What is sound? Is it really so relevant in transmitting information innate to energy? If so can such light information be communicated to any place and in any form necessary?

 

I will not engage anyone in clumsy word games. Nor do I seek to hyper interpret mere words. However “sounds” relative to letters ( letters as communicating sound) are very relevant. I seek to demonstrate the relevance behind information ( sound) as proficient in explaining many things that have to the present gone unnoticed or obscured. Sound is evidenced and recorded all around us ..in flowers, rocks, anatomies, vast space. If one learns to read ( verses interpret) the theme of these sound patterns ( as demonstrative of purpose and design) much can be understood .

 

Sound ( no matter what form it is communicated in/to) can be …translated( transliterated). Sound as plethoric in every minute space of the universe and …a product of energy information being transferred. Sound( information) that exists within language, flora, fauna…..everything.

 

What is the relevance of sound….”scientists?”

 

Can a better understanding of the principles of sound as transmitting information ‘unravel’ ( or dispose of ) .theories?

 

Thank you for the acknowledgement that the human anatomy forms distinct shapes of explicit geometries such as the elephant and duck. ( though those two alone pale compared to the full preponderance) Why? As well: Why can one bypass scrutiny of the human anatomy and with the same predictability strictly utilize phonetics of muscle terms to arrive at these determinatives. Why can one equally use mathematics and geometry ( proportions and symmetry) to predict these relationships BEFORE observing them.

 

So many “why’s” unanswered relative to so many so-called “absolutely true theories.”

 

Reiteration: This thread will participate in the scientific discussions enumerated above

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Expansion of air= expansion of information= the illusion of the expansion of the universe.

 

 

Energy expansion= light reflected

Light reflected= information communicated from A to B. ( transliterated through the principles of sound)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

All you're doing is word games, still no science.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Soundoflight, I have found a forum you would suit better with your 'science' (read: word games):

 

Linguistics Forum

 

 

Go forth and prosper

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I'm not sure what the point of all this is, but it's not science, and now bears no resemblance to the topic title. Closed.