0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can use any evidence you like, but if you use your own semantics, nobody else will read it.
Quote from: alancalverd on 21/01/2016 09:04:40You can use any evidence you like, but if you use your own semantics, nobody else will read it.In addition to Alan's point, if you use your own self evidently false logic, as you have on posts below, no one will want to enter into discussion and Spaceflow's comment will be judged corrrect. Alternatively you can enter into a reasonable, sensible dialogue, but I suspect you don't really want to do that. So I'll leave you to it.Good luck.
self evident false logic? how is it self evidently false when people in the thread have agreed it is obviously easily true.
It is always best to write the abstract after the paper is complete. Once you are satisfied with the paper, the goal of the abstract is to summarize your key points not your method. You might use the introduction to present how your thinking came to be, and then finish the introduction by pointing out how you plan to approach your thesis. Your abstract above is a better way to finish the intro. It stills needs some historical background to explain why you think this is a good path. The body contains the conceptual principles, the details and analysis applying your principles. After you are done with the body, write the summary and then the abstract. The abstract is a simple summary, with just enough key results to allow the audience to know what the paper is about. Simple allows more audience, than complex.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/01/2016 13:16:58self evident false logic? how is it self evidently false when people in the thread have agreed it is obviously easily true. I have noticed that when someone agrees with one point you make, you tend to assume they are agreeing with everything you wrote. This is false logic/reasoning and is the error you made in the other thread.
No, I don't agree with most of what you say Thebox. I only agreed with the premise that anything which is nonzero is history, simply because this is a rather wordy (and stupid) way of saying anything that exists, exists. It's certainly not going to win a Nobel Prize...
When people agree with the key points, in my eyes they are in total agreement.
If the main point and focus is correct then so must be the rest.
No, it depends how those key points relate to the other pointsThat is false logic, again it depends on the exact relationship between the points.
So far, all you have done is to state what we already know, in a pointlessly complicated and imprecise way. To summarise1. The human eye responds transiently to photons in the energy range 1.5 - 3.5 eV (-ish! Other species can detect and discriminate energies slightly outside this range)2. c is constant.Nobody is going to argue with either statement of experimental fact, so why obscure the facts with waffle? You will note that scientific writing involves very few adjectives or abstract nouns. If you can't define it or measure it, it's art (or philosophy, religion or politics, but I won't accuse my friend Box of any of those perversions of the human intellect) not science.
It may take 8 minutess for light to travel a straight line to Earth, but the mind see's the Sun in the instant of now.
QuoteIt may take 8 minutess for light to travel a straight line to Earth, but the mind see's the Sun in the instant of now.So what? It takes a letter 3 days to arrive from New York, but I read it when it arrives. Big deal? I think not. Information always follows the event, and everyone knows that.
So this means there is no simultaneity, it means GR and SR is incorrect, it means time is a constant and can't variate or have the said time dilation.
It means time is a continuous discrete constant.
everybody knows that it is only curvature of the Earth that stops us seeing where the letter is being sent from. If the Earth was flat I could see you with a telescope providing we had a clear linearity of sight.
On the contrary, if an observer is equidistant between two sources and receives light from both simultaneously, he knows that the light was emitted from both sources at the same time. No problem with relativity, just common sense application of the constancy of c.
Alas, so far everything you have said falls into one of two categories(a) obvious but badly expressed, or (b) meaningless assemblies of jargon ("packet loss relative to sight").A single photon is emitted by a single electron transition and obviously cannot convey an image of an extended object that is made up of lots of electrons (and other stuff), any more than a single pixel on your screen can convey this entire message. So what?