tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post36599756912631901..comments2023-12-27T00:49:31.972-08:00Comments on Aether Wave Theory: AWT and plicate topologyZephirhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-83235658907680416032010-11-05T04:31:44.008-07:002010-11-05T04:31:44.008-07:00In dense aether theory the reality is gradient den...In dense aether theory the reality is gradient density driven and it appears like density fluctuations in dense gas. You cannot see that gas - only density fluctuations of it. It means, observable reality is inconsistent and dispersive by its very nature - if it wouldn't, we would see it at all.<br /> <br />AWT describes math theories with <a rel="nofollow" href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/awt-and-plicate-topology-of-ideas.html">implicate geometry</a> model. The theories are formed with density fluctuations in casual space, which are connecting scalar points (scalar axioms) with density gradients (vector, tensors) represented with implications. It means, the casual structure of math theories is similar to structure of universe and it appears like foam.<br /> <br />After then we are facing the very same inconsistency problem: every theory must consist from at least pair of postulates, which are defining it's implication vector and enabling their extrapolation (i.e. testable prediction) along line. But if these postulates would be fully consistent, we could replace them with single one and whole theory would change into tautology. You cannot extrapolate a line from single point in unique way. <br /><br />In such way, every formal theory must remain inconsistent at least a bit - or it would change into tautology without true value. It just seems, math theory, the Peano algebra in particular is no exception. On this trivial insight the <a href="http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/awt-theories-and-gdels-incompleteness.html" rel="nofollow">Goedel's incompleteness theorems</a> are based, too.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-12865226151121003372010-08-05T00:51:40.960-07:002010-08-05T00:51:40.960-07:00I'm not hating scientific method, but extendin...I'm not hating scientific method, but extending it. Form matters for formalists only.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-27183426355197770152010-08-03T20:09:49.408-07:002010-08-03T20:09:49.408-07:00Anonymous, above, has given you VERY good advice. ...Anonymous, above, has given you VERY good advice. Do everything you can to TAKE that advice.<br /><br />I was very interested in what I expected to find here. Instead, I simply laughed... a lot. Halfway through, I began to presume that the article was a spoof -- an intentional joke. <br /><br />Yes -- it's that bad. Form matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-39239900982727319292010-07-29T11:22:47.230-07:002010-07-29T11:22:47.230-07:00You'd probably get more support if:
A) You di...You'd probably get more support if:<br /><br />A) You didn't hate the scientific method.<br /><br />B) You had someone who could correct your constant grammatical errors.<br /><br />C) You stopped using so many made up words and concepts. That kind of thing is okay if you're writing a book where people are slowly introduced to your 'framework'... but this article for example can't stand on its own. To me, it sounds like I started reading the middle of a bad science fiction book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-66416640098645825612010-05-15T04:35:13.127-07:002010-05-15T04:35:13.127-07:00We cannot have progress in science without healthy...We cannot have progress in science without healthy faith in postulates and various extrapolations of theories in the same way, like we cannot have progress in science without strict adherence to logics. After all, every implication is sort of belief - it extrapolates antecedent into consequent like vector in causual space-time.<br /><br />Many crackpots, but even pathological skeptics are violating this equilibrium often. Pathological skeptics are religious believers like crackpots - they just prefer to believe in negative hypothesis. These skeptics are usually believing, their approach is more scientific, but they're usually wrong.<br /><br />There is very thin line between religious ignorance and skeptical ignorance. For example Holly Church was skeptical to Galileo findings simply because it adhered to existing scientific models. Today we have tendency to consider its stance as religious, but in Galileo times this stance was skeptical one.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30708128.post-65659216329242459622009-10-30T05:34:03.965-07:002009-10-30T05:34:03.965-07:00There is the annoying problem with falsifiable the...There is the annoying problem with falsifiable theories: they sometimes get falsified. <br /><br />This is entertaining point, illustrating the nature of emergence, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, unfalsifiability of formal theories, etc. in one sentence.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com