Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: A theory of matter2

  1. #1 A theory of matter2 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    Perception is all.
    WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
    There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
    Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
    Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
    'Perception is all' implies we (one) can find the truth if we (one) choose(s) to perceive correctly.
    In perception what happens is we try and match the set within our heads with the sets within the world.
    (We find what were looking for -- then shout Eureka! What were looking for is order.)
    There are two sets the sine of the inverse tangent of counting numbers and their reciprocals and the sine of an even number of angles stepped consequetively constantly: 9, 18,27....90.
    These two sets cannot co-exist one destroys the other.

    The underlined is not true. What we do is try and mold the world to be like the set we choose in our heads.


    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    Perception is all.
    WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
    There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
    Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
    Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
    'Perception is all' implies we (one) can find the truth if we (one) choose(s) to perceive correctly.
    In perception what happens is we try and match the set within our heads with the sets within the world.
    (We find what were looking for -- then shout Eureka! What were looking for is order.)
    There are two sets the sine of the inverse tangent of counting numbers and their reciprocals and the sine of an even number of angles stepped consequetively constantly: 9, 18,27....90.
    These two sets cannot co-exist one destroys the other.

    The underlined is not true. What we do is try and mold the world to be like the set we choose in our heads.
    That is pretty much a word salad. It doesn't mean anything to me. First you entitle the thread A theory if matter2 but then say nothing about matter. Your thread doesn't even seem to have a subject. Plus its totally incoherant. Nest time constructing a coherent cogent argument.


     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    Perception is all.
    WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
    These are reasonable points. They may or may not be correct, but they have a ring of truth to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
    You offer no justification for this statement. We see many examples in science and in life where there are more than two ways to interpret something, so your premise here is wrong from the outset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
    Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
    .
    Even if I was to spell holistically correctly this makes no sense. Thereafter your post descends into the word salad noted by pmb. I think you were overly ambitious posting this in pseudoscience. Do you want to take another stab at injecting meaning into it?
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I think you were overly ambitious posting this in pseudoscience.
    My thoughts exactly.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Quote Originally Posted by pmb View Post
    That is pretty much a word salad. It doesn't mean anything to me. First you entitle the thread A theory if matter2 but then say nothing about matter. Your thread doesn't even seem to have a subject. Plus its totally incoherant. Nest time constructing a coherent cogent argument.
    I like word salad. It's like writing a book with vomit. It's simply original. The text did not prove a point, but it underlined a certain level of intelligence. This means he can think for at least 20 minuts straight without bleeding from the ears.

    Truth = Perception = Balloney

    Wrong or right = Interpretation = Sandwich

    Combine the two, and youve got a balloney sandwich.

    I think Joshua Stone tried to explain, he thinks that matter is created by the perception of out mind. That it is a perpetuation from our own existance and our way of defining the universe. This however is incorrect. The universe outdates us slightly, by a zillion years. Matter is not there because we see it. We see matter because it is there. Stop twisting it..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Baloney sandwich with a side order of word salad. Delicious cold, disgusting hot. As opposed to jazz. I was not too surprised to see that "word salad" is a symptom of various psychotic and delusional disorders.

    Based on past experience, Mr Stone will be back to make at most one comment. Or possibly not at all. He doesn't seem too interested in dialogue, just sharing his salad.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    I was going to explain how we choose a set. And why there are only two sets, ways of perceiving.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    The matter is the sets of concentric rings we choose.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    Its all abit much to explain really. So I grow tired of writing.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    The reader will either understand or not, if I write a brief version they can work the rest out from there.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
     

  12. #11  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Meaningless, empty of any content.

    To the trash with it.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    Its all abit much to explain really. So I grow tired of writing.
    I will save you the trouble then.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Similar Threads

  1. Zero Space-Time Theory-Grand Unified Theory of the Universe
    By tianman32 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 27th, 2013, 01:31 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 19th, 2011, 04:07 PM
  3. When folk theory meets scientific theory?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 27th, 2009, 07:26 AM
  4. Dark matter theory resolved or just a new theory?
    By tbraun in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2009, 01:23 PM
  5. Valence Bond theory? Molecular Orbital theory?
    By oceanwave in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 10th, 2008, 08:36 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •