> > > > > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck > > > > > > > > > Length
I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its description.
I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to provide observational correspondence.
- Tim
> > > > > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder > > > > > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in > > > > > > > > > physics > > > > > > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important > > > > > > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've > > > > > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain > > > > > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand. > > > > > > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures, > > > > > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall. > > > > > > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.- > > > > > > > Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine. > > > > > > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims > > > > instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool > > > > cannot fix another. > > > > > Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read > > > > my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that > > > > you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply. > > > > IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional > > > interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language. > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No > > > delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that > > > humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has > > > no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.- Hide quoted text - > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > and probably havent been laid in years.
