I predicted that you would react negatively to my post because I knew you would misinterpret it. Please allow me to dispell any confusion. The law of laws simply states that laws should not be SPECIFICALLY formulated to say what is impossible. To clarify, by saying what is possible laws do NOT SPECIFICALLY say what is impossible. For example, if I say green is possible then you're trying to tell me that that means that all other colors are specifically impossible by implication and that's simply not true. The law of laws on the other hand simply states that everything is possible and thus the only thing which is impossible is nothing. Thus when you say something is possible it doesnt mean you're saying that something is impossible at all. Rather you are saying that something IS possible and therefore the only thing that you're really saying is impossible is nothing at all. This is philosophically very profound and indeed it is a blessing so I cannot see why you don't think it is amazing being that you consider yourself to be a philosopher.
Besides which, you don't have to attack the law of laws to address the matter at hand. Even though the law of laws is indeed correct and it is indeed the MASTER physical law, you don't need the law of laws to show that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when the universe and time are considered as a whole. Rather, you can prove independently that the laws of thermo are irrelevant in an absolute sense and then use this as evidence for the law of laws. This is exactly what I did yet in your rebuttal you failed to address the specific points which I mentioned. Specifically, you failed to address how can you prove that matter can not be created if you can not determine where it came from prior to the big bang? Secondly, how can you prove that perpetual motion is impossible if time itself IS perpetual motion? Thirdly, how can you prove that the arrow of time will still go in the same direction even after an infinite amount of time? According to logical thought time does not end until/unless the arrow of time in our universe reverses. That is the only thing that can technically put an end to time, a reversal. Therefore if you consider the whole of time you have to consider that the arrow of time will theoretically reverse at the end of eternity. This may sound like a stupid conclusion but only if you can not see that it is a very intelligent and in fact TRUE conclusion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<>> I thought you were a better thinker. And I thought I felt youd didn't had much truth because you were most of a philosopher than physicist (and philosophers are never sayiong the truth)... But I've realised that it's not only that you have no truth, but also that you have no reason, and the mixture of these two negation is: Religion. That's what you are. Nothing else, nothing better.
Aham, aham... Niether is th law of laws a physical law, or can it change anything in physics. You say the three laws of thermodynamics are wrong as they state what cannot be done, not what can. You are wrong. Not only because by stating what can't be done, directly it is stated what can be done, but also because the do state what can be done, jusy by yourself a text book. I could discuss the rest you say but it's all so wrong nothing can be done.
And it is YOU the one talking about irrelevancy? What? You! Who do nothing but talk about a theory that is not there, and that has no holes, of course, you say, there is no failure in your TOE... That's because it is neither a TOE or it is at all anything, apart from a ghost for that matter. YOU talk! But you do nothing but believe you have the great law of laws... We all knew that really retarded law ages ago! And anyway it's not even really correct... YOU talk! Lot's of time, you talk... And yet, one can see how after so many words, you have said nothing. |
I am sad that you wish to attack me but I am sure you do not really mean it if you really understand who I am. I was merely trying to teach you about irrelevancy, but you don't want to listen. Since you are attacking me I will defend myself which in part implies attacking back. I have said many things on this forum, at least as much as you. For example, I have provided the solution to the incompleteness theorem, I have discovered the law of laws which you say you knew all along but somehow you didn't care to mention it. I have also just recently solved Russell's paradox and you can see this if you go to the main page because I just posted it. I have provided explanation for the axiom of choice, and probably other things I can't remember. These are all very important accomplishments I think and for you to belittle them makes me feel like you are unappreciative or you just don't get it. I am sorry if you are mad at me for keeping my theory precious but that doesn't mean you deserve to call me a fraud and say that my theory is a ghost. Just yesterday you were saying how you want me to post my theory and now you are pulling a 180. This is why I have not released my theory you see. People act like they are excited and glad and hopeful but then they quickly become impatient. This is all a great trial don't you see? Mankind has been tested at every step of the way and here I am, the final judge who holds the final great theory. By solving some of the greatest paradoxes of all time I have practically given you everything you need to discover the TOE for yourself, and yet it still remains elusive to you. I will be around for a while longer, and maybe if you act respectfully and you show your ability to be hopeful and positive unconditionally and with painstaking patience then you will prove your worth. So you can tell me after all my words that I've said nothing, even though I have given you the power of positivity and have solved such paradoxes as the incompleteness theorem and Russell's paradox. Look around you on this board and tell me who has been more successfull or more productive. With all your words telling me my words mean nothing, what does that really mean? Aha, it reminds me of the empty set in a way, devoid of any meaning. Afterall, what paradoxes have you solved?
I will forgive you for attempting to insult me, because I know you did not mean it. I will be looking for signs of good faith and when they are evident enough to me then I will give the world the theory of everything. Until that time I will assume that mankind is too hastey to receive it as they have been hastey and indecent throughout the whole of human history.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GUILLE And this is too much! You've misinterpreted completely what I said... I talked about the rest mass, not the rest state in spacetime... I talked about the mass of matter, not of light/photons... And by the way, energy does not have mass, who says that is either very stupid, I would say under Forest Gump, or lying, lying more than Jesus or Mahoma, and that's hard even trying... |
ps. what is rest mass if not rest state? hint, you will not be able to answer this question unless you realize that it is a trick