/sci/ - Science & Math

Stopped at the first sentence. You're full of shit.

>unironically starting with "people have always done X"
Didn't you go to high school ?

Way to practice generous orthodoxy dudes.

>>9722274
>everything is reducible to zero

>>9722274
First sentence is false. There is no scientific theory that concerns itself with the beginning of everything, actually there is no scientific field that does either. Speculation in regards to origin but not function of beginning, is a small blip in like 1-2 subfields. 'scientists' are a broad range of people found in many fields. The Big Bang Theory isn't a theory to do with the beginning of reality, or even the beginning of the universe. It describes the very early universe, not its beginning let alone any supposed 'beginning of reality'. Such a notion is invalid anyway, not nuanced enough.

>>9722274
Fucking Flatland causing retardation again...

This is not, how, dimensions, work. The flick is a social parable, not a description of reality. Get this through your heads, please. We are not "beings of the third dimension", we are objects in spacetime.

>>9722452
Name one thing not reducible to zero.

>>9722509
You're just reconstruing the same idea I use for "being" and calling us "objects". And realize this, idgaf about your personal definition of dimensions. I've completely redifned it. As the post title implies this is a philosophical conception of scientific reality. Now get get off your high damn donkey and try again to engage my conversation.

>>9722583
your iq.

whoops nvm ur right holy shit

>>9722474

>>9722626

>>9722509

oh my god where do these people come from

Relevant

>>9722274
Is there a source for that image or you just wrote that shit?

>>9722305

>>9722660
Irrelevant. Prove my misunderstanding. Then I'll agree. State I misunderstand and you bring nothing of value to me.

>>9722664
you bring nothing of value to the rest of us so let’s call it even

>>9722663
Lulz. You want me to appeal to a more "valid" authority? This is mine and I'd like some constructive criticism. So if you have anything of substance to help it'd be much appreciated.

>>9722667
Prove it.

>>9722654
/pol/ obviously

The only thing preventing me to be mean to you OP is the fact that we've all been there, thinking we knew better than others and that our insights were revolutionary.
With time you'll realized that you were a fool posting this load of crap. And maybe you'll even understand that the "why" question is an unanswerable one and that it doesn't matter in the end. Thousand of years of the brightest minds didn't provide any answer and it's not some random dude on an korean cartoon forum that will change that.

>>9722749
Cool. Shoot down my efforts with character attacks. The worst thing I'll be is wrong. But you've chosen to be nothing. I haven't given in to thinking I can do nothing. I'd like to construct myself through trial and error. This is my first try and no one here seems to be interested in showing me my error sufficiently.

>>9722749
Believe it or not I love criticism when it's true. Eliminates error and gets me one step closer to the correct answer.

>>9722274
I'm not going to say what's written here is incorrect.

I can't. Because I can't understand it. This doesn't read like something insightful to me, this reads like a college philosophy freshman with absolutely zero scientific or writing background trying to emulate Time Cube.

What the fuck are you on?

>>9722789
You failed to properly defined your terms and your concepts instead, using pretry much pseudoscientific terma. What do you mean "reducibke to 0"? Do you know what a singularity is? What is the evidence for the BBT? Why is something of dimension 0 "most probably exist"? What probability or whay arguments you have for that? The idea of therw being dimensionless points in thee dimensionaln space that constitute matter follows from anything you said? All matter I know has some "radius" but the concept of poiint particle is generally problematic in the quantum world. But what the hell does 0 dimensional energy means? Energy is a scalar quantity that has valuable information about physical systems, but it's not a localized object in the universe. Time is a paramater and has lost any quality since Relativity was a thing, and you cannot use BBT and dismiss relativity. Basically there is nothing coherent about your arguments and it shows you don't understandthe physics of it.

>>9722826
Any universal quality since relativity was a thing.*

>>9722796
What if there was no correct answer?
Would you off yourself?

>>9722789
Also, it's BBT DOESN'T say that the universe started from a singularity, and there is no consensus of that, but that it had to be an extremely high density and high temperature, but the evidence is isufcient to conclued exactly what happened.

Please just go to school sell your sell and get a dead end job and do it for the rest of your life. You'll produce much more value that way. You can't submit some weird manifesto and then ask everyone else to prove you wrong. That isn't how making claims work. You are making generalizations and conclusions that

a) mean nothing
b) are substantiated by intuition and intuition alone.

the paper also reads like a high schooler wrote it so I really hope you aren't older than 18 and if that is the case I hope you get banned.

>>9722749
>we've all been there
Not since I was too young to browse this website legally.

>>9722274
yeah kind of retarded, automatic assumption of infinite/multiple realities, where the fuck are you getting this assumption from? thanks for enumerating it in the beginning (that's sarcastic, you didn't)

>>9722880
Cut me down with something that's got more edge to it. Idc you don't like my intuitions. I'm merely positing a philosophical theorem. That my theory a) means nothing, you leave unsubstantiated. b) that my intuitions are wrong, you haven't proven.
And yes. Asking everyone to prove me wrong is how making a claim works...

>>9723008
It's called modal logic. I'm trying to create a definition of reality that incorporates any rational evidence we find or conceive of reality.

>>9723027
But you have failed to justify your physical claims about really and gave handwavy concepts of cosmology that you took as concrete definitions. It makes literally no sense, and we cannot prove you wrong because you fail to see that you are starting from a thesis that is incongruent with modern physics. Again, what the heck do you mean by "reducible to 0"?

>>9723023
You cite various fallacies in logic and you aren't aware of burden of proof? It's your job to prove your statement, not ask others to disprove it.

>>9723042
Everything traces its meaning for existence back to the point where there is no longer a regression. This I call 0.

>>9723042
This is philosophy not physics. Dimension 0 is not observable or measurable by us but it's my hypothesis that it is a good explanation for concieving the beginning of anything.

>>9723064
You make a bunch of claims but you dont argue why those claims are valid. Theres nothing to discuss, because theres nothing of substance in your paper.

>>9722826
I conceive that if 3 dimensional matter exists that it arose from simpler matter. 2 dimensional matter. This is unsubstantiated for sure. I'll merit you that. But for me it is more probable that a thing that arises doesn't arise spontaneously into complexity. It is more probable that simplicity precedes complexity. Hence 0 dimensional matter. Now energy I would make an exception for transcending dimensional properties. But matter is absolutely fixed dimensionally.

>>9723081
Name what doesn't have substance because your critism doesn't have it. Maybe ask a poignant question.

>>9723049
What do you need me to prove? Or clarify for you?

>>9723059
Okey, you defined tediously the concept of the origin of the universe. But how is then that related to your claim of everything is reducible to 0? By definition, if you assume a beginning of the universe, then there once was a point in causality from were you cannot "go back", but this in no way implies there is stuff of dimension 0 , that would mean there are distinct places in the universe from which the universe itself is beginning to exits in direct contradiction with your own fuckong definition. If what you mean is that at 0 the universe was also mathematically 0 dimensional that's another assumption from your part, not supported by modern physics in the slightest.
>>9723064 and yea, but you are purposely mixing a philosophical concept which is the beginning of the universe with a mathematical model of a dimensionless point 0. Also you are using the term energy, which either you failed to give a different definition that the one used by physics, or you are using physics concepts in your argument, which renders it useless as energy is not what you are talking about. And again matter of 0 dimension would mean matter that has the origin of the universe by your definition, what the hell does that even mean? Don't mix mathematical concepts and expect to not get the aame scrutiny we have in math.
>>9723086
Again, using concepts in physics. Claiming there exists some sort of dimensionless monad or whatever that is the building block of all matter is not a new concept, and it's just atomism and it's conceived as 0 dimensional in some cases, but there are working models that assume a discrete universe in which fundamental particles have a fixed volume, and have far better answe that "probably cause simple before complex" which doesn't follow from the human notion of complexity. And again, define energy properly because if you are using the physics concept, you are full of shit.

>>9723086
Energy I think interacts dimensionally based on power. Subtle and precise energy affects 0 dimensional matter.
Analogous to if I grew enormously such that the size of my universe is proportional to the size an atom is to me now, but even more miniscule. If I were try and interact with the universe, now smaller than the size of my atoms, I wouldn't be able to affect it. Because the universe would just slip through me.
I think of energy in the same manner but instead of size, it's power.

>>9723117
That makes no sense from a physics perspective, what the hell you mean by energy?

>>9722274
typical crank, I feel sorry for you

>>9723116
Atomism is close to what I'm thinking but I go a step further in specifying them dimensionally. D0 "atoms" do "work" i.e. produce energy that gives rise to expansion of themselves and give rise to the next dimensional atoms. So D1 atoms are supported by a framework or foundation of D0 atoms. D1 providing a framework for D2 so on and so forth.

>>9723133
You didn't answe half of the questions I asked you.

>>9723131
>>>9722274 (OP)
>typical crank, I feel sorry for you
I feel sorry you've lost all energy to contribute charitably to someone else. Merely weakly critize an authentic effort of understanding something.

>>9723141
You have failed to answer simple and direct criticism of your concepts. You are either deluded or a troll.

>>9723116
>>>9723059 (You)
>But how is then that related to your claim of everything is reducible to 0?

Anything complex must be built on something simpler in quality until you reach 0.
The third dimension arose necessarily from a simpler universe, the second dimension, which arose from the first, which arose from 0.

>>9723155
But againz you defined 0 as the beining of the unverse. How can the be things with dimension 0 in an already existing universe? You are full of shit.

>>9723116
>>>9723059 (You)
>By definition, if you assume a beginning of the universe, then there once was a point in causality from were you cannot "go back", but this in no way implies there is stuff of dimension 0 , that would mean there are distinct places in the universe from which the universe itself is beginning to exits in direct contradiction with your own fuckong definition.

Dimension 0 still exists. Providing the framework and foundation for all of reality.
But it's dimensionally minuscule size and power only relatively affect the first dimension, which affects the second, and then the third.

>>9723167
Then you notion is ill defined.

>>9723157
A line is 1 dimension. And a point has 0. The line is made of infinite points. Without the infinite points though, there would be no line.

I'm starting to get concerned about the fact that this board attracts more and more of people like OP, electric universe and flat earth threads are seen too often these days and just earlier some retard started a thread saying that antigravity is the reason why less dense than water objects float upwards.

Jesus christ, where do these people come from?

>>9723116
>>>9723059 (You)
>If what you mean is that at 0 the universe was also mathematically 0 dimensional that's another assumption from your part, not supported by modern physics in the slightest.

This is what I'm trying to prove. Before our universe was as it is, it was necessarily something else dimensionally. A lineage of history tracing back to dimension 0.

>>9723175
Then it's inherently a mathematicak concept which is a model of physicis. Belive me, your haven't proived jacj shit rationally.

>>9723116
>>>9723059 (You)
>And again matter of 0 dimension would mean matter that has the origin of the universe by your definition, what the hell does that even mean? Don't mix mathematical concepts and expect to not get the aame scrutiny we have in math.

I'm saying what gave rise to 3 dimensionally properties and nature came from and are supported by 0 dimensional elements and nature. Fractaling in complexity.

>>9722583

you can't reduce a negative number

>>9723179
>>>9723175 (You)
>Then it's inherently a mathematicak concept which is a model of physicis. Belive me, your haven't proived jacj shit rationally.

Fine. I'll fit the 13 fundamental constants of our universe into my concept and show how they connect in a dimensionally regressive manner.
Would that suffice?

>>9722274
This thread has been really hard for me to read. I was OP. I would scribble down my thoughts and then marvel at how I understood the universe as no one else could. It was like God had struck my head with lightning and was compelling me to write. Its like a disease or specific form of delusion or mania or something. A very cruel one. I was convinced I was going to make a mathematical and philosophical breakthrough and be famous. This is despite the fact that I got D's in maths. I still have all the notes.

OP its great that your trying to make an effort and thinking deeply but take heed of what people here are saying to you especially the screen shot of the book. That is very relevant.

Its going to hurt a lot when you realise this writing has so real merit. It doesn't mean you have no real merit. I don't really know what it means beyond it being a cruel joke God plays on your mind.

>>9723182
You're right. I can produce it to 0.

>>9723184
How did you get out of it? Did you actually get diagnosed with something or was it just pure ignorance and delusions of grandeur?

>>9723183
>13 fundamental constants
So you are arguing within a physics not philosophy.

>>9723184
I'm not interested in halting my progress. I find trial by fire the best method for me to conceive things and be motivated. Give real criticism and stop telling anyone to stop what they are doing.
If you disagree with the path they are walking, show them a better one and do your damn best to get them on it.
I won't be appealed by emotion. I want constructive criticism.

>>9723189
Understand something philosophically and you should be able to translate it physically.

>>9723186
Pure ignorance and delusions of grandeur. I have BPD and depression but its not really a hallmark of those diseases. Unless it counts as a type of mood swing that brings on mania.

>>9723194
Lol, handwavy bullshit. Y9ur definitions make no sense, you are mixing math, science with metaphysics and, you salvageable concepts are shit ways of conceiving philosophical schools that existed 2000 years ago.

>>9723198
I have narcissistic tendencies but I'd rather use it productively then suppress it.

>>9723198
Were you an adult (21+) during that time? If not, how old were you? I'd say anyone displaying these traits below 19 isn't really too bad and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

>>9723191
Fine. Go and do a degree in physics. If you truly have a viable "Theory of Everything" that would be ground breaking and historic. Therefore a physics degree should be no problem. After all it wasn't for Einstein or Oppenheimer or Newton. If its more philosophy then again go do a doctorate in that.

Does it not seem slightly odd to you that those people had to go through years of schooling and PHD's before they came up with their theories and yet somehow you've come up with yours without all that?

What is your level of maths? What is your knowledge of philosophy?

>>9723200
Glad to hear you have a deep appreciation for ancient conceptions of reality. How naive to dismiss them so flippantly.
I've studied loads of Daoism, Gnosticism, and Alchemy. Hence the untechnical language and as has been repeatedly pointed out "handwaving".
This is my attempt to engage the more technically versed part of science and get oriented with it.

>>9723201
If this is OP I'd say you have more than tendencies. You are deep deep within a narcissim bubble and trust me, I speak from experience, It's going to be VERY painful when it pops. I feel sorry for you and don't wish you any harm. You need to start tackling this now because the longer you wait the more messed up your life is going to be.

>>9723202
From the ages of 14- to 24 sporadically. The Narcissism bubble really popped when I was 25 I'd say.

>>9723205
Bachelors in Philosophy and Psychology. Would love to go back for Masters and Doctorate in Science, Phil, and Psych.

I'm not trying to say this is groundbreaking. I have quite the opposite attitude. This is barely a first draft. Just wanted to jump head first into the chan community.

>>9723211
Exactly what I thought. If its not ground-breaking then how is it your idea and why is it worth posting. If it is then you should be able to do very advanced math. Especially if your talking about dimensions. It really worries me that you say you have a degree but are still writing things like this.

>>9723209
I'm not selling you guys on this shit. I'm trying to get you to engage with me on it. I have no pride in this article yet. I have a long ways to go. But I was hoping for some helpful additions and clarifications of my concepts.
Even pointing me at the right article or people who think alike.
The atomism critique was good. I liked it.
I am trying to combine ancient concepts of reality with modern ones because I think linguistics has rendered modern thinkers helpless approaching old forms of science but I find them invaluable.

>>9723212
Dude... I didn't know I had to have things perfect posting on this site. I thought it would be a communal collorabortive project. Not a let's hurl shit at this without stopping for a second to help empathize and understand what he is trying to get at.

>>9723211
How did you get a degree in philosophy if you obviously don't understand the notion of logic? How the fuck did you pass the logic course?

>>9723215
I would say the same of you...

>>9723213
Set theory and set theory involving infinity. You'll quickly see your very out of your depth.

>>9723219
Thank you. Could you ellaborate your understanding for me?

>>9723214
Now your hurt? You came in with a super arrogant attitude. How did you think total strangers would treat you on the internet? Believe it or not several years ago I was HERE on THIS BOARD doing the SAME THING and getting the SAME RESPONSE.

>>9723222
There's no hurt. The first responses weren't valuable AT ALL. So I critisized them for that. Point me in a direction and I'll follow it down a ways.
Critisize my character for positing I can understand everything and I won't care.
Make unsubstantiated claims that I don't understand something and I'll want what I don't understand clarified and specified.

>>9723219
What are the best resources on this?

>>9723211
And a newfag to boot. /sci/ really gets the cream of the crop.

>>9723222
Can I get a reading list? I love to learn from others success then to waste effort failing.
Keep in mind it's my first post. Didn't know I couldn't post my own theories. I wanted you to see the gaps in my understanding and help me fill them.

>>9723233
Your not listening to me at all. Goodbye my friend. I wish I could help you.

>>9723232
Glad to see your closed minded to the idea of empowering the weak. Maybe that's why relationships are so difficult for you? You lack empathy, compassion, and humility to try and engage with those you perceive as less than you.

>>9723235
Oh right. Just stop pursuing idealistic goals? I'm not old enough to have failed as many times as you have in life in my pursuits. But I have learned the most efficient manner of obtaining wisdom is directly from those who have experienced it. And can more precisely communicate it in the context of my situation.
But c'est la vie I guess.

>>9722274
The first paragraph is mostly nonsense. Try to have every word add something important and not just sound like scientific jargon. Reducible to zero is meaningless for example. So my constructive criticism is to to say something smart rather than say something that sounds smart.
PS. the first paragraph put me off reading the rest.

>>9723233
You need to understand that what you posted has nothing to do with a scientific theory, I doubted that you passed the logic course because if I were to look at your paper as a philosophical work, you lack basic notions of axioms and proper definitions, from which you derive some truth, if I were to look upon your paper as a scientific theory, then you obviously have no clue that a scientific theory needs to make

a) falsifiable predictions
b) multiple evidence supporting it and finally
c) it has to be accurate with previous results and must be reducible within some limits to previous theories

yours "work" has none of that, that's why we can automatically dismiss it within reading the first line

>>9723244
I'm not going to concede that everything isn't reducible to zero unless you give an example.
And by "reducible" I mean traced back to it's origin.

>>9723236
Guess they didn't warn you about projecting in those psychology classes.

>>9723246
Oh my god. I had no idea I needed to produce thesis level work to be engaged with on here. Fine. This is shabby work I'll give that. I put tiny effort into it. But I thought an appropriate place to discuss, elaborate, and expound on the ideas I presented would be here.
I'll come back then with a more sufficient paper.

>>9723253
/sci/ is more than open to lead endless therads on actual science (rarely these days) or math, but you presented nothing worth of discussing, it's just a word salad that doesn't fit any notion of the existing body of knowledge.

Yes, even revolutionary works are derived from previous ones and built upon them.

>>9723207
>Alchemy
Your phil degree is trash.

>>9723272
Your understanding is.

>>9723258
Then keep on discussing others findings because clearly as evidenced by the level of engagement I've received, you're all incapable of producing your own innovative thoughts. I'll come back to disprove your beliefs. Just thought you'd be able to contribute.

You still have failed to answer concrete questions about your own definitions and concepts.

>>9723287
>I'll come back to disprove your beliefs.

Jesus fuck, don't come back at all. You're obviously absolutely retarded and didn't understand anything of what we tried to relay to you ITT. Please go share your findings with reddit next time, they might be more welcoming.

>>9723247
That is still nonsense, you are still just using jargon, what the fuck does "traced back to the origin" mean?

>>9722583
Love

OP, you keep repeating that everybody dismisses you without telling you why you're wrong. The problem is, they can't. Because you're not even wrong. You're nonsensical. Being wrong means you have posited something coherent but flawed. You failed to even posit something coherent.

Look up the concept of "not even wrong", then think long and hard what it means for people to not be able to point out mistakes.

Aim for being wrong, it's a step up from this.

>>9723448
This. You are mixing concepts frim many fields in a pseudoscientific way to justify your wierd philosophy, whit at the end is just a tedious and erroneous construction of coordinate space using arguments from a the coninuum (i.e. a 1 dimension is many 0 dimenisons put together, and so on), but then start pulling concepts from physics like energy, with the mote abatract philosophical conception of the beginning of the universe. Your thoughts are messy and incoherent and therefore need no refutal as the point is moot since the beginning. Either specify your claims, and be specific when you are talking about metaphysics, ontology, physica, math and what is analogy and what not. If you are genuinely interested and not some massive faggot, then try to read Lacans absolute bullshit conception of the mind. basically he just put fancy set theory words to try and "formalize" psychoanalysis, and it has been shat out many times, even though there's still faggots defending those claims. If you want to use physics and math, you cannot expect a different than approach that what is used in physics or math to criticise arguments just because you say it's "philosophy".

dude you are fetishizing the idea of liking constructive criticism and wanting to improve

I think you should replace the phrase "big bang theory" with "big bang conjecture" and then also change the acronym.

OP, I'll try to be nice because I want you to listen.
What you are doing here is called "being a crank". It is actually quite common, believe it or not. My father, a professor in Archeology receives pretty much daily emails from random people about a "Huge discovery of a forgotten civilisation" and it's just word salad and blurry pictures of a bone in a cave or some shit. Sometimes you get a bit worried because its just run on sentences that never stops. In this case they are usually Schizo.
Anyway, the point is this one : what you are presenting here is a huge mess. To make big claims, you need big proofs. Creating knowledge, even small bits of it takes a lot of time and effort. That is why scientists usually work on very specific questions. Have you read a thesis ? It's always something so fucking specific and precise its sound dumb, but there is a lot of work and thought behind it, however small the question may be about.
People are right, you are not even wrong, because you don't make specific claims about a specific question. You make extremely broad statements about nothing in particular, and then wonder why people don't wanna argue the point : it is because there is none.

I think it is great that people do research, and think. However, I think you should calm down a bit about "explaining the universe". When you try to understand everything you'll end up knowing nothing, but trying to understand a little something usually leads to great things.
If you are really interested in Physics or Math, I would suggest you go back to school and get your ideas crushed a bit. It happened to me and honnestly it is one of the best thing I did.

>>9722583
Anything that is 3 dimensional

The way you write sounds like that one kid who would raise his hand in like middle school geometry to ask about some concept he thought only he knew like imaginary numbers or something

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.amp

This is someone whose thinking along the same lines as me.

>>9724723
I refuse to believe that you understand the paper mentioned in the article.

>>9724780
Now this thread can officially suck my dick.

>>9724802
you got your trial by fire, and now you're on fire. careful what you wish for eh?

>>9722274
A lot of rambling and empty words, you're truly the Einstein of pseudo-science.

>>9724723
So you are talking about physics and not philosophy. Then I can absolutely confirm you are talking out of your ass.

>>9722660
book?

>>9727537
http://us.metamath.org/downloads/metamath.pdf

>>9727543
thanks and i wish you the best.

Y'all fell for this. Op got you by the panochas

>>9724143
Good advice. Too bad they rarely listen. For example, the one that claimed proof of resolving P vs NP on /sci/ a couple of months ago refused to learn from any criticism and only obfuscated the "proof" further.

I think that could be the deciding factor of when a crank can still be saved. At the very least, those who refuse to learn are surely beyond salvation

OP this is nice conceptualisation. Keep going down the tracks;
Anons are soaked in holy water.. You may be shooting blindly, but good job nonetheless.

>>9727659
Thank fucking god for good people like you. I AM talking out my ass. But that doesn't mean it has ABSOLUTELY no value. I wanted criticism to really fill in the gaps of reasoning I presented. Because there is a lot of technical work necessary to fully realize my conception. But I wanted feedback on how that would be brought about or how to prove the concept. But noooooo.
Bascially my theory is our 3 dimension arose from previous dimensions and those previous dimensions provide the framework of our universe beneath the atomic level.

>>9727659
>>9727765
Imagine how insecure you must be to praise yourself in an anonymous image board

>>9727765
sounds like you only want exactly what you already want to hear. Why make a thread like this, to only listen to people who are literally saying "hey it's nothing, but good job at putting in the effort to produce that nothing!" like >>9727659

>>9723059
>>9723086
>>9723091

Dont reply guys this man is obviously mentally ill.
Reminds me of someone I work with who spouts flat earth theories and electric universe shit and when called out with facts says it is just your perspective.
No matter what you say he will not change his thinking, his worldview is entirely solipsistic.

>>9722274

>>9728278
The Universe is electric moron

>>9723086
Matter is not fixed dimensionally

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoELwBYzNDY

>>9723246
>a) falsifiable predictions

Fuck off with that Popper bullshit.

>>9724143
>Lost civilizations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuJCsj4PrfU&list=PLtFnfSc9NwNzp___VQT02nbxkt-7TRtoB

>>9722274
This is clearly a schizophrenic. He's literally been arguing with himself the whole thread. Just ignore the retard and move on.

>>9727765
I don't believe you have a degree in anything, much less philisophy. You are 16 and watched some lectures on MIT open course, you probably didn't even do the readings.

Also, I think it's funny how you lambast those critical of you with "give constructive criticism, not just antagonism" but when someone provides even the slightest glimmer of support, you get down on your knees for them.

>>9722274
That font rendering is atrocious, for the love of god fix it please, this hurts my yes.

Your "article", is just non sensical mumbo jumbo, yes you will call this an adhominen, because it is, wasting logic refuting bullshit is a waste of time.

0/10

>>9722639
>>9722644
>>9722649
Fallacy Fallacy.
You also didn't address the arguments these people provided and they didn't even commit the fallacies you called them out for.
Not even the adhominem you managed to call out correctly, since he BTFOed you pretty hard with his JOKE.

The "Appeal to definition" is especially annoying since you clearly don't understand that if you want to use a definition which is NOT the standard definition you HAVE TON DEFINE IT BEFORE USING IT, because if you don't NO ONE KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE WRITING.
The "Definition Fallacy" is ONLY valid if someone uses their definition instead of yours, but you didn't define your own words, so it can not possibly apply.

>>9728631
why is it bullshite?

>>9728622
>Vortey math
A delusional retard talking about things he is too mentally ill to understand.
This is embarrassing, even flat earthers are more sane then that.