• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#1
Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Another inane post by Israel Sadovnik/Socratus.

You have been banned from how many forums for posting

this unintelligent garbage? Yes you are a legend on the net
you even surpass our mate Preearth as I am pretty sure
you hold the record for the most forum bans.

At 68 you think you would have learnt how to communicate

or has the devil and your madness got to you?

Most on the forum here are happy to discuss almost

anything but the key is discuss.

So I will ask you one more time if you have something

to discuss tell us in CLEAR language.

I do not want to see another pile of drivel and quotes

masquerading as something meaningful.
Orac

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44488#Post44488
========…
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#2
For example I say:
Quantum Theory become clear and logical
then we take as a fundament T=0K.

Is this opinion ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#3
I don’t think that to understand my ideas is difficult.
I try to explain my ideas as simple as possible.
For example:

Why we cannot understand Quantum Physics.

The problem is that physicists draw the Quantum Physics
with ‘ math point-particle’ and therefore they ‘kill the picture
of ultimate reality.’
Of course, physicists know very well that the particle isn’t a
math point, but any another model of particle brought difficult
which they could not solve. Therefore physicists preferred
to think about particle as a structureless point
===.
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’. The problem is that there are 5 or 6 ‘ string
theories’ in 10 or 11 dimensions .One theory is better than
other one. And they decided to unite them in one
‘ M-string theory’ . This theory is still in a cultivation.
=.
So, now we don’t know what elementary particle is and
therefore we don’t have the Philosophy of Physics.
=.
Is my opinion difficult to understand , is it ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?
=.
Socratus
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:33
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,918
#4
Well you're certainly no Carl Sagan when it comes to putting this shit into simple terms for your readers.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 04:33
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,807
Location
38S 145E
#6
I don't mind your posts socratus :)
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#7
I don’t think that to understand my ideas is difficult.
I try to explain my ideas as simple as possible.
For example:

Why we cannot understand Quantum Physics.

I've always had trouble understanding quantum physics

The problem is that physicists draw the Quantum Physics
with ‘ math point-particle’ and therefore they ‘kill the picture
of ultimate reality.’
Of course, physicists know very well that the particle isn’t a
math point, but any another model of particle brought difficult
which they could not solve. Therefore physicists preferred
to think about particle as a structureless point
Agree totally. A no particle is a structureless point. Points represent position but they are symbols only.
At last from 1968 physicists decided that instead of a
‘point particle’ they will use ‘a string – particle’ and developed
‘ string theory’. The problem is that there are 5 or 6 ‘ string
theories’ in 10 or 11 dimensions .One theory is better than
other one. And they decided to unite them in one
‘ M-string theory’ . This theory is still in a cultivation.
Agreed again.
So, now we don’t know what elementary particle is and
therefore we don’t have the Philosophy of Physics.
Well physicists try to work with what they can find experimentally. Who is to say there is such a thing as an elementary particle?
Is my opinion difficult to understand , is it ‘an unintelligent garbage’ ?
Socratus
There are two approaches to the philosophy of physics:
(1) Theories that match up with experiments.
(2) Theories that are constructed mathematically.

The idea is to bring the two together. No surprise they have yet to succeed.
 
Local time
Today, 09:33
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
731
#9
intelligence is in the eye of the beholder
ban-happy forum mods have control issues in their "real" lives
don't take it too personally Socratus

:elephant:
 

Systems

Worshipper of Banjulhu
Local time
Today, 18:33
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
Location
Denmark
#12
@Systems. Could very well be.

How and in what way could it be annoying?
He posts a lot of qausi-religious nonsense. He pretends it is physics he is talking about, but it's just a lot of rubbish jumbled together. Of course he uses some terms from physics, but that is a far cry from being scientific in any meaning of the word.

Well that and the endless ans pointless topics that he is about the only one posting in. I am usually ignoring him, but since he asked, I might as well tell him.
 

Moocow

Semantic Nitpicker
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
920
Location
Moocow
#13
I don't see what's annoying about it, regardless. There are always some posters that just kind of do their own thing and if no one chimes in, then that's the extent of their influence.
 

Systems

Worshipper of Banjulhu
Local time
Today, 18:33
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
64
Location
Denmark
#14
I don't see what's annoying about it, regardless. There are always some posters that just kind of do their own thing and if no one chimes in, then that's the extent of their influence.
And you are certainly free to feel so. As I said, I wouldn't barge in on his topic just to say that, if it wasn't because this thread asked specifically for opinions. I don't like his posts, but I don't condemn people who find some value in them.
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
80
#15
He posts a lot of qausi-religious nonsense. He pretends it is physics he is talking about, but it's just a lot of rubbish jumbled together. Of course he uses some terms from physics, but that is a far cry from being scientific in any meaning of the word.
I think he's understandable, and tries to lead us from point 1 to point 2, though I don't have enough knowledge about these topics.

Can you write some examples of this quasi-religious nonsense and fake physics?

On the other hand, I hope I can analyze Socratus' writings better when I'll have more knowledge about physics because these texts seem to be interesting.
 
Local time
Today, 11:33
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,948
Location
Oklahoma
#16
It is a matter of shared antecedents. It is rather natural to think that Others understand the antecedents to any statement, when in fact, they do not in many cases. For example, I just assume that anyone who posts in Philosophy and Faith threads, has a background in cognitive development and actually has some inkling of metacognition and how humans think. However, this is not usually the case...

Before one suggests a solution, it is often appropriate to define the problem which it addresses in easily understood terms, so that other solutions can be included in a discussion of one's own.

Addressing an internet audience as if they all are bright children is not a bad approach. When writing one needs to keep the audience in focus, which is actually a difficult skill to acquire for many...
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#17
Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Ever do a jigsaw puzzle? What to you see at the start? Answer: unintelligent garbage. No picture. No sense. So what is the task? To assemble and make sense of it. I don't sit there and say, "Why the hell did they cut up this fine picture."

How would we make sense of s0cratus? What do we have to start with? Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is English his native language?
2. What is his mental state. Is he okay or awry? How are your feeling that you can judge?
3. What display mode is he using? Comes out white on extremely light blue for me. So I run my cursor over it to read it.
4. Does he post on religion or is that separate?
5. Are his physics statements legit? They are to me. (Of course I may not be legit, so be wary.:D)
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#18
Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Ever do a jigsaw puzzle? What to you see at the start? Answer: unintelligent garbage. No picture. No sense. So what is the task? To assemble and make sense of it. I don't sit there and say, "Why the hell did they cut up this fine picture."

How would we make sense of s0cratus? What do we have to start with? Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is English his native language?
2. What is his mental state. Is he okay or awry? How are your feeling that you can judge?
3. What display mode is he using? Comes out white on extremely light blue for me. So I run my cursor over it to read it.
4. Does he post on religion or is that separate?
5. Are his physics statements legit? They are to me. (Of course I may not be legit, so be wary.:D)
Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
/ Eleanor Roosevelt /

Isn’t it better to discuss my formulas ?


§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H -- > . . .


etc
=======..

 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#19
He posts a lot of qausi-religious nonsense.
He pretends it is physics he is talking about, but it's just a lot of rubbish
jumbled together. Of course he uses some terms from physics,
but that is a far cry from being scientific in any meaning of the word.


Well that and the endless ans pointless topics that he is about
the only one posting in.
I am usually ignoring him, but since he asked, I might as well tell him.

On the science forum I don’t speak about religion.
On the science forum I only try better to understand
the problem of Physics.
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#20

Isn’t it better to discuss my formulas ?

Not necessarily. People might not recognize the formulas because some of the symbols aren't defined. How would anyone know what Planck's constant is, for example?


§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H -- > . . .

Maybe
Agent Intellect knows about #1, 3,4,5.

I don't know why #2 is listed under particles. E/M=c^2? What do you want to do with this well-known formula?
 

A22

occasional poster
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Brazil
#21
What's the point? A mathematical relation between the characteristics of vacuum, particles (whatever you understand as being a particle), photon, electron and gravity?
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#25
what is your purpose?
are you just an advanced attention wh0r3?

hard for me to have my own opinion these days bc
I can see where everyone is coming from.
I was a philosophy major, and I was always like..
"good point... well, he makes a good point too..."

/ [quote=NinjaSurfer; /



Why ' he makes a good point too..."
because accordind to the First Law of Philosophy :
For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

==.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 04:33
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
4,635
#26
Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
/ Eleanor Roosevelt /

You can always discuss them all and more... But you might write garbage, I couldn't care less finding out however it doesn't apear to be unintelligent. (however as I said I haven't bothered finding out and am mainly posting this because I am bored[but not that bored])
 
Local time
Today, 09:33
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
731
#27
[...]


Why ' he makes a good point too..."
because accordind to the First Law of Philosophy :
For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

==.
I didn't know that was the First Law of Philosophy
but I didn't pay that much attention in school
oh wait I think you were being sarcastic

:elephant:
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#28
I didn't know that was the First Law of Philosophy
What about the other two laws?

The force with with the philoposopher applies his principles equals the size of the philoposopher times how fast he increases how fast he moves.

&

The philosopher tends to stick with his schtick unless an outside force is applied
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#29
The Second Law of Philosophy:
They're both wrong.

The Third Law of Philosophy:
When they both understand that they're both wrong,
then they're both right.
==..

My Law of Philosophy:
Philosophy without Physical formulas, equations and laws is tautology.

============….
 
Local time
Today, 11:33
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,948
Location
Oklahoma
#30
So what is wrong with tautology or epistemology, for that matter? My point was that few understood one's epistemology, or shared one's POV, not that it was invalid, in any manner...:confused:
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#31
So what is wrong with tautology or epistemology,
for that matter? My point was that few understood one's epistemology,
or shared one's POV, not that it was invalid, in any manner...:confused:

Tautology is nothing but repeated use of words or phrases
that have a similar meaning.
If a part of a sentence which is repeated, appears unnecessary or unessential, it can be called a tautology.
=.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/tautology-examples.html
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#32
Local time
Today, 11:33
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,948
Location
Oklahoma
#34
Local time
Today, 09:33
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
731
#36
[...]
The First Law of Philosophy is correct :
For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

==.



but this assumes that there exist philosophers in the first place

can you prove that a philosopher even exists?

and what if there are an odd number of philosophers? how does that work out?
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#37
One could argue that every equation in mathematics is a tautology because both left and right say the same thing.

On the other hand we could argue that even an identity, as A = A, is not a tautology since one A is on the left while the other is on the right, making them different.
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#38
One could argue that every equation
in mathematics is a tautology because both left and right
say the same thing.

On the other hand we could argue that even an identity,
as A = A, is not a tautology since one A is on the left while
the other is on the right, making them different.
===.

According to Heisenberg and ' non-commutative algebra'
( ab ) is not equal to ( ba ).
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#39
According to Heisenberg and ' non-commutative algebra'
( ab ) is not equal to ( ba ).
In non commutative groups, ab≠ba, but what is this about Heisenberg? How so?
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#40
In non commutative groups, ab≠ba,
but what is this about Heisenberg? How so?

I think it is because here is talking about situation
in 2 different reference frames:

in one RF is ab =ba ( Laplace / Newtonian determinism )

and in another RF is ab≠ba ( Heisenberg Uncertainty principle )

====..
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#41
There seem to be two difference reference frames, but without more detail I don't get ab≠ba ( Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ). Sorry.


There seem to be two difference reference frames, but without more detail I don't get ab≠ba ( Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ). Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Etheri

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 18:33
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
1,000
#42
Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
/ Eleanor Roosevelt /

Isn’t it better to discuss my formulas ?


§ 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H -- > . . .


etc
=======..

These colour and fontspams make me sad. Anyways,
(2) says h=0. I'm not nearly done studying quantum, so i may well be wrong, but as far as i'm aware h=0 implies no quantum effects. h=0 also implies formulas following in (3), (4) and (5) are meaningless. (They describe quantumeffects, where as h=0 implies no quantum)


One could argue that every equation in mathematics is a tautology because both left and right say the same thing.

On the other hand we could argue that even an identity, as A = A, is not a tautology since one A is on the left while the other is on the right, making them different.
I was taught two diffrent definitions considering tautology.

The first is rather irrelevant here, but concerns language. 'White snow' or 'Green grass' (forgive me for my lack of imagination) would be considered tautologies, because snow implies it's white, and grass implies it's green (to certain extent, atleast.) The adjective does not offer any additional information.

And then there's the mathematical / logic definition of tautology, which stated that an equation is a tautology only if the equation is an identity for every possible value of every single variable in the equation.
A = not ( not ( A )) would be considered a tautology in regular formal logic, because it's true no matter what A represents. This is opposed to a contradiction, a statement which is never true for any value of any variable.
A = not (A) would be considered a contradiction.

Not every equation in maths is a tautology.
x² > 0 is a tautology in R, but not in C. etc.
What I think you meant, however, is that in arithmetics, following statements must be tautologies, which I think is true.
x² - 4x + 4 = 0 (statement)
<-> (x-2)² = 0
<-> x = +-2

equations with = would not be tautologies, but transformations of these equations by arithmetic changes would be tautologies.
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#43
These colour and fontspams make me sad.
Anyways, (2) says h=0.
I'm not nearly done studying quantum, so i may well be wrong,
but as far as i'm aware h=0 implies no quantum effects.

h=0 also implies formulas following in (3), (4) and (5) are meaningless.
(They describe quantumeffects, where as h=0 implies no quantum)
====..
§ 2. says h=0. . . as i'm aware h=0 implies no quantum effects.
Etheri

There is no quantum effect because § 2 shows formulas
of quantum particle in potential conditions.

And formulas following in § 3, § 4 and § 5 explain the active
actions / conditions of quantum particle where h is not zero.
=====.
 

Etheri

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 18:33
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
1,000
#44
====..
§ 2. says h=0. . . as i'm aware h=0 implies no quantum effects.
Etheri

There is no quantum effect because § 2 shows formulas
of quantum particle in potential conditions.

And formulas following in § 3, § 4 and § 5 explain the active
actions / conditions of quantum particle where h is not zero.
=====.
I don't understand why you'd mention 'h=0' and break up wave-particle duality, rather than just not mentioning this, using h's actual value and keeping the duality in place. Then again, as i'm saying, this is me not understanding, you probably have a fair reason.
 
Local time
Today, 17:33
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
366
#45
I don't understand
why you'd mention 'h=0' and break up wave-particle duality,
rather than just not mentioning this, using h's actual value and
keeping the duality in place.
Then again, as i'm saying,
this is me not understanding,
you probably have a fair reason.
==.. ,

§ 2. h=0, shows a potential impulse / spin of particle

§ 3. h=1, shows the corpuscular ability of particle

§ 4. h*=h/2pi shows the waves ability of particle

===
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#46
Understanding "garbage"

Does Socratus write an unintelligent garbage?

Another inane post by Israel Sadovnik/Socratus.

You have been banned from how many forums for posting

this unintelligent garbage? Yes you are a legend on the net
you even surpass our mate Preearth as I am pretty sure
you hold the record for the most forum bans.

At 68 you think you would have learnt how to communicate

or has the devil and your madness got to you?

Most on the forum here are happy to discuss almost

anything but the key is discuss.

So I will ask you one more time if you have something

to discuss tell us in CLEAR language.

I do not want to see another pile of drivel and quotes

masquerading as something meaningful.
Orac

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44488#Post44488

========…

I am quoting the original post (OP). I find this thread to be an excellent example of the understanding tools: perspective and translation. When you read the thread you may decide for yourself whether this is true or not.

s0cratus has posed the question of whether he posts sense or nonsense. You can see evidence that some are clearly in favor of the nonsense answer while others have struggled to make sense of what he says and sure enough have found sense.

I also find that if one is judgment (J) oriented it would seems one is in favor of taking action accordingly. If one is perception (P) oriented one is in favor of trying out the not-so-obvious alternative.

Note that there is more than one issue involved here:
(1) The content of what s0cratus has said.
(2) The form of the presentation itself.

Both are subject to inquiry.

So what we have here are different perspectives and a difficulty in translation.
 

Coolydudey

You could say that.
Local time
Today, 19:33
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
1,040
Location
Pensive-land.....
#47
I've gone into this before, he doesn't say wrong things in general, but setting stuff like c=0 (light doesn't travel?) is highly questionable. Here is where he gets his stuff plain wrong: t=E=infinity in a vacuum. t=13.7 billion years, just like the rest of the universe, and since a non-vacuum has more energy than a vacuum, (but even without this), the universe has infinite energy, which given its finite size means infinite energy everywhere. And energy isn't undetectable. Furthermore, there are no particles in a theoretical vacuum, so no particle vibration to measure, therefore no temperature to define. Therefore T=undefined, not T=0.
 

PhoenixRising

nyctophiliac
Local time
Today, 09:33
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
726
#48
Why do you even pay attention to this person's comments? He sounds emotional to me, your opinion probably offended him and he's butt-hurt about it. Just ignore him, and keep asking questions and presenting your opinions. I get bad reactions from people due to my communication style all the time, it's their problem for being stuck in their own little bubble where they believe everyone should communicate the way they do.
 
Local time
Today, 12:33
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,988
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
#49
Why do you even pay attention to this person's comments? He sounds emotional to me, your opinion probably offended him and he's butt-hurt about it. Just ignore him, and keep asking questions and presenting your opinions. I get bad reactions from people due to my communication style all the time, it's their problem for being stuck in their own little bubble where they believe everyone should communicate the way they do.
My position is just like in real life, one can ignore anyone that disturbs them. If others pay attention to someone that disturbs them, one might be disturbed even more, so what to do? I think two answers:

(1) Change the other guy
(2) Change oneself

This raises a moral issue. Doesn't changing the other guy against their will (assuming he's not a criminal) risk more problems? There are ramifications and potentially bad ones. Saying how one feels is another method. Then one gets it off their chest plus the other guy can now decide if they need to clean up their act or not. If they choose not to, at least you've said it.

I forgot:
(3) Have a discussion, the purpose being to mutually get across where one is at.
 
Top Bottom