True Science is Pure Logic and Philosophy

[Abced No.15059347]

A word isn't a word, it's a logo. A thought isn't a thought, it's a word. I believe this relates to the Consciousness Theoretical Model of the Universe because the universe must observe events for them to have any effect on physical reality.
If space is converted into time, and the location of the singularity is converted into a future point in time, and if every direction faces or goes toward the singularity, then it is not possible to approach the singularity once inside of a black hole. If the future event of touching the singularity can not happen--and it cannot happen because space is converted to time, and therefore no action of movement occurs--then the action of time does not move either. Time as a perception is dependant on events. If the existence of being inside of a black hole's event horizon and not moving in space or time is itself considered an event, then time and space are intrinsic, otherwise there must be a "where" you are at and a "when" in order for the singularity to exist as it requires an observer to be perceived. If the perception of this event existing is not removed while inside, in other words, if consciousness to any degree of the observer remains once inside of the event horizon, then it is possible to exit the inside of an event horizon through quantum tunneling, and is the reason they all evaporate over time.

[Abced No.15059349]

If you stop existing before meeting the singularity, rather than seeing and exiting it, then the singularity is never seen; can it be said its being interacted with? Can it even be said to be causing anything else to not exist? If it destroys everything that reaches it, then there is no ground for a gravity to exist. Gravity depends on mass. Gravity depends on not just one piece of space pulling, but the information of that pull being transferred to each vector of time-space around the gravitational object. Each vector or particle does not care about how much gravity strength is being reported from one single vector, but from each and all at once. So the mass of the singularity is thus imaginary. The mass of the black hole has only to do with what has temporarily been stored in it. Because its amount of mass is ultimately less than the total amount of mass of the universe, its pull is relative exactly as a fraction of this. Infinite gravity or not, the vectors do not care about the reported gravity, only the amount of vectors reporting this. This is also why the gravitational pull of the Earth does not turn off the fact the Moon is pulling us too somewhat. If the singularity is destroying the vectors or information going near it, then there is no logical or rational ground to say it has any gravity, because nothing can transfer the information.

[Abced No.15059353]

Why is this possible? The amount of possible angles in space are uncountable, and the amount of possible lengths of time, that is, the smallest and largest and specific of values(time as a vector) are an uncountable(thus empty space exists truly, and uncreated time exists). Therefore there must always be some space where it is possible to exit, as this very same true vacuum space is what is required for the singularity to exist in any way. Its location physically is constantly shrinking and moving and spinning, because of the pressure wherein all vectors around it are constantly seeking to fill the empty space of the singularity. But the singularity, once no longer empty, is no longer a singularity, like a water drop evaporating. To summarize, the singularity is not solid in a physical way, but the existence of solidity itself, the process which forms the temporary apparent nature of stable or solid vectors, is itself a reliable process, perfectly observable and measurable and so itself solid, long-lasting. The area just outside of the singularity is what we are typically calling the singularity, the point which appears externally to not move and to be considered a solid point or wall-like event, like an object. It seems singularities have a dual nature like light does. Light is a wave and particle, so is sound(phonons), but singularities seem to be both an event and an object, and it is difficult to define it as one or the other, it seems doing so locks it into one mode of behavior, and as we well-know, there are black holes that spin and those that do not.

[Anonymous No.15059354]

Thanks /lit/ but philosophy doesn't tell me why there's only a certain amount of bosons or why there's only a certain amount of forces derived from them. Math answers these questions.

[Abced No.15059355]

>>15059354
We know we why is only a certain amount. This has to do with our system of detection and categorization of possible geometric and mathematical patterns in space-time.

[Abced No.15059356]

>>15059354
This has to do with our system of detection and categorization of possible geometric and mathematical patterns in space-time.

[Abced No.15059371]

>>15059354
The four forces in the beginning had one particle to each, one field. But each also is like the former, each force inherits the force of its creator-force. Each has virtual and quasiparticles. Each has the force of gravity within it. If you look, gravity was one and then split into gravity and the strong force. But gravity didn't split again. Instantly the strong force, in order to maintain itself to gravity, and doing what gravity did, itself splits into the strong force and the electroweak force. Then we see a period of time where just these 3 forces exist. Later it was split into the electromagnetic and weak force. In the vastly far future, electromagnetism will split into the electric force and the magnetic force. However we as humans know ahead of time with certainty that they are secretly one force. In this same way, so are the rest.

Gravity as a force was itself not the beginning force. Gravity is what we got when that beginning force split, just as gravity did. That beginning force was a multiplicative force; a generative force, outward expansion. Gravity is instantly formed at that beginning as consciousness, which then formed space, the sense perceptions, and then time, the mental perception of noticing the generated particles from the Generative Force. The Generative Force spontaneously broke into the Generative and the Gravity Force for the same logic of "1 and 2". That is, instead of a dualism of 1 and 1, an additionalism, where 1's dual match is not 1, but a dual-set below it. Hence this repeating pattern of forces splitting / multiplying.

In other words, there are already 5 forces, and the unification force never went away or split; the apparent split is part of what it does.

Same as with gravity, the generation of new energy appears as a conceptual force to be so weak(said to not exist) it has often been said the universe will go cold, but remember relativity and Roger Penrose's comments on the big bang.

[Anonymous No.15059372]

>>15059356

ok but remember that math is a language onto itself, and therefore has it's own logical philosophy. If you can't speak math you can't operate within it's philosophical construct, making assertations useless. Mathematical empricism and objectivity is what defines it from the arts, and is why it became a seprate, distinct discipline during the renaissance when Calculus was discovered. Then electricity was gradually discovered, and James Maxwell successfully mated Pythagorean's theorems with Calculus to create usable Alternating Current theory in the 1870s. By defining electricity using triangles, we could now observe it's relationship to magnetism which was soon understood to be the same force. Both allowed for practical uses of electricity.

It was subsequently commercialized by Nikola Tesla and Westinghouse Electric in 1888, allowing for long-distance electrical transfer, high-quality long-distance telecommunications and usable wireless Radio Frequency communications. From this came a better understanding of electricity's relationship to chemistry, the German discovery of the Haber-Bosch process (& the development of the gasoline explosion engine which uses a similar methodology), and eventually the modern industrial laboratories (particularly Nitrate Plant #2 which would later evolve the Y-12 complex) that yielded nuclear chemistry and then nuclear physics. From that we get modern particle accelerators and (ultimately) quantum mechanics then string theory.

Anyway, my point is that you're ignoring all the important math history and development of E-M theory in this. There are certainly philosophical elements but it is using mathematics as a medium. Using a young language like English (and English logical axioms) does not do the universe justice nor explain it well.

[Anonymous No.15059374]

>>15059371

It's debatable if gravity even exists as it's based on mass, which based on recent research mostly exists due to torque created by quarks bouncing around within subatomic particles. Gravity would just be a function of their spinning action attracting each other for some reason. That's my point - such an idea doesn't work well within an English language arts context but works well within a mathematical context.

[Anonymous No.15059375]

>>15059354
>why
Thats a word, and the answet will be words too...you just write them in a fifferent language, similar Chinese or Egyptian Heiroglyphs. Symbols, like "side length 1" is "1", regardless if measured/metered length.

You're not a Mathematician, you's a fan.

[Anonymous No.15059377]

>>15059375

The larger debate here is less "why" or "what" and if math is finite or not which relates directly to Calculus and the study of the infinite. And such is how we get actual philosophical discussion from mathematics when it is not necessarily useful or warranted, because debating if infinity exists is not useful unless it can be proven mathematically.

[Abced No.15059381]

>>15059374
See my first three posts, they relate to objects and events seeming to exist but not actually existing, just as you said that gravity seems illusive and I agree, there is more to it.

[Abced No.15059382]

>>15059374
Also, my retort is: If gravity relies on torque, then of what substance causes the torque? What material is the object causing the torque made of? If it is made of many parts, what is holding them together? What you have said is groundless.

[Anonymous No.15059387]

>>15059377
>because debating if infinity exists
Master both cases, never be wrong.

https://youtu.be/E_dGqavx5AU

Nornan basically makes the case for both sides, infinity is basically a drynamic measuring, Penrose does the same thing in Physics. Just cut it off "at the end/infinity" and call it a day.

Side length 1. You keep reading a numeral, thats wrong.

Side length Z. Better? The symbol doesnt mattet here as the "metric" you divide it up is up to you, not 12" or 10cm or whatever. The ancients didnt have "Standard Units of Measure".

The did math without numbers, you, and Norman, dont fully understand Number Theory (like I do) but Normans works point out a lot I have in the past so Im a fan of his works, even though we disagree about some of the details or reasonings.

[Anonymous No.15059391]

>>15059382

>then of what substance causes the torque

A waveform, something that quantum mechanics doesn't incorporate well but which exists. It's hard for humans to have a good concept of it as there aren't enough words in the English language to properly describe it. As to why waveforms exist ans the substrata they are composed of, this again is arguing about infinity because the only real difference between bosons/gauge bosons is their spin/charm/flavor. This object of classes is not defined well -I'll admit that this is an English problem thrown onto mathematicians who failed to find a suitable explanation- and won't be defined well until better words exist to describe it. IMO, I beilive mathematicians or physicists will find such language before a philosopher.

Also, for what it's worth human language is finite. Very large, but finite and largely based on the amount of guttural voices we can make with our vocal cords or sounds within our hearing range. Which creates a philosophical question if we're ever able to create a direct brain interface or otherwise reroute communication around our ears, in which case the amount of available human language options expands greatly. This, as retrospectively applied to the math subject above, implies a finite mathematical universe. This is not necessarily correct and is why I don't like this methodology as it is not precise.

[Abced No.15059392]

Any metaphor, or system, or visualization, so long as it is consistent, can be used perfectly to predict phenomena via an allegory.

Let's visualize particles as marbles, and their paths as real strings. Let's assume these strings are thick enough to be affected by other strings.

Let's also imagine that as the particles move, they get smaller, and so does the string. But that this has no limit mathematically.

Now, the visualization where particles never actually bump into each other like pinballs, but instead their trajectories change anytime a particle pushes on its string. The amount of change depends on where the push is, the size of its particle pushing on it, and so on. Thus, both a particle and a string theory work at once. This visualize is one of many possibilities but, over truly uncountable time, you could get this simulated reality out of any system due to entropy. Which basically means that the intrinsic self-ordered nature of the universe repeats itself at intervals of entropy. The disorder becomes so disordered it is a flat equal haze, and mathematically has the added attribute (emergent effect, added dimension) of order. On this, it is then considered a manifold, and waves then coalesce to create order on top of numerous disorder.

Eventually you get drop-particles from the real manifold, which are like waves with huge peaks, these peaks are the particles and the string is the wave under them which as I said is larger the closer to source, and you get all three again: particles, waves, and string-manifolds. All of these, it doesn't matter how many dimensions or what size they are to themselves; externally, a relatively tiny string will always behave like a relatively tiny string in human hands.

We've been in the quantum world this whole time; there is no "real" split between quantum, relativity, and string theory.

[Abced No.15059408]

>>15059392
>>15059391
What you see is a wave going up and down on a manifold.

In physical space, once an object begins to move it can not change where it is going unless force is applied. Therefore, what causes a wave to lower after it raises? Wave-manifolds are naturally without viscosity, so what causes it to lower?

I see a wave going up, and a particle on its end, and it becoming like a string at its peak. I see another from a different manifold coming to it from another direction. It hits the string and the particle and the string-wave changes course. This happens many times, and this results in it going down. But the action of it going down was not from gravity, or gravity is the result of these interactions then causing a downward motion, and so they do it indirectly instead of directly, most of the time.

The manifold has negative viscosity, which is the container positive viscosity is able to exist. This means objects formed out of it, that is, a wave shooting up and forming a particle during its up-phase is constantly accelerating exponentially, this is also perceptively because it is also apparently shrinking as it pulls and stretches from the manifold. Negative viscosity means the speed increases by default.

Viscosity is formed when the strings of each particle are touched, this causes the direction to change but it doesn't stop the negative viscosity.

The collecting / coalescing effect that ends up looking like gravity is the same as with water droplets when they merge and disperse. The viscosity water exhibits is dependent on external forces.

[Anonymous No.15059412]

Take your meds, schizo
>captcha: KYSH8

[Abced No.15059422]

>>15059408
With the right geometric conditions, the differences in viscosity are the same as positive and negative pressure, and you end up with a void, a space, and that is a singularity, the basis for average 3-d empty bubble space to exist from, which then allows for "real" solid objects to form relative to the inside of the space, seemingly separate from the walls.

These conditions repeat within one another and you get real water, earth, and light, and also super-real water, earth, and light. That the "philosophical" sources or objects are even more real than what we define as physically real in that they are eternal concepts and patterns, and our physical plane is a manifestation of these two concepts as opposites as a superposition of one thing.

This is the same thing Hermetics mention, the above corresponds with the below and the below corresponds with the above to create the miracle of the one thing.

[Abced No.15059437]

>>15059392
Take this visualization, and look at the movement of the planets, and it is visually possible to see the planets circling around a common center of gravity as if they were wrapped with strings around each other, tugging at each other's tails, rather than directly affecting each other gravitationally.

This is also why gravity has such an effect on the cosmos as to form planets despite constantly being called the weakest force, and why planets seem to almost always find a way to chase each other, instead of gravity causing them to crash into one another as one might expect.

This is also the source of dark matter and dark energy. Its of the idea of string theory and manifolds and particles and waves all at the same time. Especially given that holographic theory shows apparent physical natures of these are mute, which again beckons the comparison of water and viscosity differences and no mathematical limits on "stretching" the manifold. This also means all of reality is one manifold, and is an echo of energy from relativity or the manifold itself not being able to be added to or subtracted from.

[Aether king of sci No.15059439]

>A thought isn't a thought, it's a word.

No. Thought is locked 0-force. Thinking is 0-force current. If you try to think you're doing it wrong, it happens magically(contradictory-force), the most you can do is change your thinking pattern or leave it to chance. When you stop and say ' come on, think' that is merely change in thinking pattern. It's not your head heating up either, mind isn't heat-driven.

Troll.

[Abced No.15059442]

>>15059439
Things are not what they are, or appear as, but they are what another thing appears as. Thoughts are not what they appear as: thoughts, but are another thing: words. Words are likewise not what they appear as: they are not words even though they appear as such.
Force looks like force, current looks like current, but both are unreal independently.

[Anonymous No.15059446]

>>15059347
>A thought isn't a thought, it's a word
I can have thoughts without words though. I don't get it

[Abced No.15059448]

>>15059446
And a word is not a word. So to have thoughts without words makes sense. I'm saying in agreement with your personal experience, that there is an awareness vehicle that forms thoughts, but that the thoughts are not themselves the awareness vehicle.

[Anonymous No.15059452]

>>15059448
have u read the CTMU

[Anonymous No.15059453]

>>15059412
Quiet, Psudo-Intelligence. This is man's talk.

t.Number Theorist

[Abced No.15059457]

>>15059452
Yes, I have looked into virtually every theory I've ever heard of, and that is a valid theory.

[Anonymous No.15059472]

>>15059457
what do u think about this

[Anonymous No.15059474]

>>15059437
>instead of gravity causing them to crash into one another as one might expect.

I attributed this to Magnetism being a yet unified for to Gravity. In my theory Magnetism is partial space/time. Physicist connected the two, I divided them with both portions Still contain space & time.

Also explains why Galaxies orbit itself in unison, and not dynamically (fastest in the middle, slower outside) as the are connected through a magnetism and hold each other in place, like a superconducting magnet.

[Anonymous No.15059477]

>>15059347
>logic
not science
>philosophy
not science

[Abced No.15059483]

>>15059472
I agree with those words, it lines up quite well with what has been said.

>>15059474
This makes sense that the forces would have repeating macro-equivalents.

[Anonymous No.15059486]

>>15059477
Both are, illiterate psuedo [[[intellectual]]].

Im not asking. IM TELLING.

The onus is on YOU to figure out how and why, maybe start by read books on Number Theory and the Defintions of Fundamental Arithmatic.

Wordy books about Numbies.

[Anonymous No.15059488]

>>15059483
...

[Aether king of sci No.15059496]

>>15059486
Why did you post this?

This is the result of forced thinking and OPs word thoughts.

Kys now or die evil

[Abced No.15059497]

>>15059472
>>15059488
What I'm discussing is using the ectomorphic end of things as the point, but as I said that a thing isn't itself but what it appears as, the point I'm discussing is actually talking about USRE through first disclosing ERSU.

[Abced No.15059505]

>>15059474
You may be interested in this since because of magnetism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIJoNHAimSE

[Anonymous No.15059512]

>Gets BTFO in the philosotard thread
>Makes this one to cope

This is the science board, friend. /his/ and /lit/ might be better for you.

[Anonymous No.15059514]

>>15059496
>Why did you post this?

>logic
>not science
>philosophy
>not science

Degenerate, youre now on my shitlist, Aether. Why eould you say something so fucking stupid, dude? Ive seen you say smart shit, this is retarded.

>This is the result of forced thinking and OPs word thoughts.

I literally have tead OPs posts, I dont care, Im a professor in Number Theory, you are a student (OBVIOUSLY, NOW).

There is no "forced", I can simply switch lenses, you cannot, so what is out of focused to you is clear to me.

READ/WATCH; >>15059387


>>15059505
>You may be interested in this since because of magnetism.
Im not, my theory is beyond the Science and Im waiting for other Theories get accepted before the door to mine has a chance to be comprehended by normies.

Ive seen some papers published in the direction, Im patient, Im not interested to teaching the illiterat though.

[Anonymous No.15059517]

>>15059512

Give a hoot, read a book, learn where math came from, stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.15059520]

>>15059517
Math comes from counting, not the semantical word-play you call "philosophy".

[Abced No.15059524]

>>15059514
The guy in the video says more or less the same thing that magnetism is partial space/time. Also that magnets have four poles, and more.

[Anonymous No.15059527]

>>15059514
>I literally have
Have not*

Im in the museum. Heh, do better Aether, I did more homework than you have.

[Anonymous No.15059532]

schizos be like
>ELECTROMAGNETISM IS THE ONLY FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE
and when asked to provide calculations they fail at basic trigonometry

[Anonymous No.15059534]

>>15059532
>schizos be like
At least a lot of schizos can talk properly

[Abced No.15059537]

>>15059520
Counting involves combining/adding and multiplying when the numbers counted become huge, then we start representing them as how big they seem relatively, and individual counted differences become more difficult to describe, like an irrational number. How do we count an irrational number?

[Anonymous No.15059538]

>>15059537
It still has nothing to do with philosophy.

[sage No.15059540]

>>15059347
too bad a potentially interesting thread is totally ruined by namefagging
try again next time without namefagging, and maybe I'll engage

[Anonymous No.15059541]

>>15059520
>Math comes from counting

"Modern Maths understanding"=Elentary School level of Arithmatic

Boy. Read a fucking book on the subject, dumbass....

[Abced No.15059542]

>>15059538
Philosophy, definition:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

2. the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.

How does my discussion not match one of these two?

[Anonymous No.15059548]

>>15059542
>wordcels be like
Thats why.

[Anonymous No.15059550]

>>15059541
Nothing to do with philosophy.
>>15059542
>Muh semantics
Not philosophy. Math is a proper discipline.

[Abced No.15059557]

>>15059542
Definition 2. I am discussing the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge, namely science, which includes mathematics, history, and so on; because a unifying force, even discussing one, necessarily involves a unifying branch of knowledge for science, math, logic, history, and philosophy.

>>15059540
Fair. This is pretty much the most ambiguous and anonymous name hidden in the beginning of the alphabet, and I'm not even using a trip because no one replicates my writing.

>>15059550
Have you read the Principia Mathematica? It proves 1+1=2, but is also over a thousand pages long. Mathematics requires language to discuss and the fact we needed a proof for 1+1=2 is evidence that mathematics like all subjects in learning are rooted in philosophy. What is philosophy except merely asking a question, and all branches of knowledge depend on questions more than answers.

[Anonymous No.15059559]

>>15059557
If you're going to claim math is philosophy, why did you make this thread? I think it's a cope because you can't philosophy is useful if you don't include science and math.

[Abced No.15059564]

>>15059559
When discussing the Grand Unification Force, this is where time and space break down, all known physics break down. All we are then left with is logic and the questions thereof to determine it.

I said they are rooted in philosophy, not that they are philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15059567]

>>15059564
You have never determined nor proven anything with logic. And because all you're describing is logic and theoretical physics there's no reason to even use the term philosophy. You might as well have just made the thread saying "I fucking love science".

[Abced No.15059572]

>>15059567
We have through logic atleast determined that nothing has been determined but perhaps we have approached the singularity just a bit. Logic and philosophy are related, as are each of the great branches of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15059576]

philosophy is math for brainlets. where how much you can rote learn actually matters.

[Anonymous No.15059593]

>>15059576
>Pythagoreanism is the philosophy of the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras
Mathlet doesnt even know he's an idiot, lmao rekt.

>This post is brought to you by the Modern Maths Gang.

[Abced No.15060598]

Another topic of interest are the numbers themselves, and negative-positive pairs.

-1 times -1 is +1. But why? I believe the real answer is in how the universe sees negative and positive numbers. Instead of an equation to be calculated, put the numbers on the left side as an array.

So -1 * -1 becomes (-1, -1). Now, when this is looked at, clearly both terms in this are the same. An equation just asks what a group of numbers as a whole have as a behavior. It doesn't extinguish the numbers, that is to say calculation is not subtraction inherently, it is observation. Since (-1, -1) are like terms, the answer is +1. Positive means "like terms". Negative means "unlike terms".

(-1, +1) together are unlike terms, so their emergent behavior is negative. And of course, (+1, +1) results in positive not because they are positive but because they are like terms.

You can take this to another level with cancelling. Ex (-1, -1, +1, +1) is symmetrical, thus the result is "like terms" and thus positive. What about (-1, -1, -1, -1)? This is also positive. (-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, +1) is negative, the array contains asymmetry, or unlike terms collectively. Instead of calculating positive times negative, look at it as a toggle. You see a negative term, instead it means "unlike". Is the next term like it? Is the next term negative? Then their value is "like" and thus positive. Is the next term positive or negative? If negative, it is "unlike". It isn't about if there are more positive or negative numbers in the array, but the calculation can be found by counting up the like and unlike terms, and seeing if they are all together like or unlike. If there are more like terms than unlike, the result will be positive. This means the calculation the universe performs when a negative meets a positive is not destructive but additive.

So (-1, 1, -1) means (unlike, like, unlike). There are more unlike terms than like terms, so the array is majority like, thus positive.