Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Again frequency and wavelength are directly related.

As two sides of the same coin.

But if the identity of the coin is not well-defined, so are frequency and wavelength.

Once again, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7479082&postcount=16250.

 

[epix]

Standing waves have frequency and wavelength just as any other wave.

I think that expansion doesn't help Doron (if he bothers to read) to take a simple look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect. A "standing wave" can be achieved through two radiation sources or one source through reflection, so the resulting wave doesn't really "stand." The resulting wave has a half of the original wavelength and a variable amplitude. The concept of "standing wave" can be utilized:

 

[epix]

Again frequency and wavelength are directly related.

No one said that they are not -- frequency * wavelength = c -- and so adjusting the frequencies causes changes in the wavelength, but in the diffraction effect there are two main variables and one one of them is the length of the opening through which the light beam passes. That length cannot be adjusted by unit called Hertz, but by unit called meter, which is the unit the wavelength is measured with.

 

[doronshadmi]

I think that expansion doesn't help Doron (if he bothers to read) to take a simple look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7489486&postcount=16260

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7489614&postcount=16261

About the dual nature of light, light measurement and Uncertainty principle please look at http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/spectrum.htm

Many physicists of the time - and probably most readers as well - wondered why the photons' paths, and thus which slit they entered, couldn't simply be measured.Two slits with a detector give two bars of light, leading researchers to believe the act of measurement had destroyed the interference effect. So imagine a photon detector placed on the slits. When physicists performed this experiment, they found that the interference pattern disappeared - two slits of light appeared on the plate! The act of measurement had interfered with the particles' trajectories, in effect forcing them to pass through one slit or the other. This is called reducing the wave-function because it takes what was a fundamentally uncertain, indeterminate quantity - which slit the particles passed through - and measured it. However, the act of measurement destroyed the experiment itself, so which slit the particle passed through not only cannot be known, but, according to wave functions or sum-over-paths, is not even a meaningful statement because the particle actually passed through both.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please look at http://www.msel-naschie.com/pdf/news/Quantum-collapse-of-wave-interference-pattern.pdf

3. The empty set – An elementary derivation of its topological dimension ( ̶ 1)

What is the dimension of a 3D cube boundary? This is a trivial question since it is clearly an area, i.e. a surface which is 2D. That means

3D(cube) – 1 = 2D(Surface).

Next we ask a second trivial question, namely what is the dimension of the boundary of a 2D surface? It is obviously a one dimensional line

2D(surface) – 1 = 1D(line).

Finally what is the dimension of the boundary of a line? This is evidently a zero dimensional point. That means

1D(line) – 1 = 0D(point).

It seems natural that by induction one could write a general expression for the above in the form [7, 8, 10, 14]

D(boundary) = n – 1

where n is the dimension of the geometrical object for which we would like to know the dimension of its boundary. This is a trivial case of induction.

According to this induction the boundary of 0D(point) is -1D(emptiness).

In other words, by using verbal left-hemisphere-only reasoning one unable to get the comprehensive framework, which is based on verbal left-hemisphere AND spatial right-hemisphere reasoning.

Once again, using induction on well-defined identities, is nothing but some trivial step-by-step reasoning (based on verbal-only skills) that has no ability to deal with Uncertainty x Redundancy non-trivial framework.

By using both hemispheres one immediately understands that -1D is the absence of 1D.

"absence of 1D" is simply the mirror image of "existence of 1D", where no one of them is considered as Emptiness (or Nothingness).

 

[jsfisher]

Please look at http://www.msel-naschie.com/pdf/news/Quantum-collapse-of-wave-interference-pattern.pdf

According to this induction the boundary of 0D(point) is -1D(emptiness).

It's great to see you have found new material to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent.

By using both hemispheres one immediately understands that -1D is the absence of 1D.

"absence of 1D" is simply the mirror image of "existence of 1D", where no one of them is considered as Emptiness (or Nothingness).

It is also great to see your ability to contradict yourself so readily hasn't diminished.

 

[jsfisher]

Well, isn't this interesting:

Mohamed El Naschie is an Egyptian mathematician, physicist and engineer. He served as editor-in-chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals and has held positions at a number of universities in Europe and Egypt. He has been characterized by some as a crank.

Now, I understand Doron's affinity.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is also great to see your ability to contradict yourself so readily hasn't diminished.

It is not so great to see that you do not distinguish between "the absence of X" and Nothingness.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, isn't this interesting:

jsfisher, you have missed this part

though a handful of researchers around the world continue to pursue his ideas.

Actually, your jump from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493454&postcount=16266 to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493492&postcount=16267 clearly demonstrates your "bla bla bla ..."

Now, I understand Doron's affinity.

"reasoning".

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher, you have missed this part

Didn't miss it at all. The fact remains your most recent reference is an idiot. This would explain why he wasn't particularly coherent in that segment you cited.

Oh, by the way, more than a handful of researchers around the world continue to pursue some of the most mentally deranged ideas of Tesla. Still others pursue perpetual motion machines. Gibberish can often attract a following of the weak-minded.

Actually, your jump from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493454&postcount=16266 to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493492&postcount=16267 clearly demonstrates your "bla bla bla ..."

I'm sure this makes sense to you, but for the reset of us, could you maybe walk us through how you were able to reach your conclusion there from connecting one post of mine pointing out you can contradict yourself in the space of just a few sentences to a second post discounting your latest citation?

"reasoning".

Like El Naschie reasoning? That's not much to be proud of.

 

[epix]

By using both hemispheres one immediately understands that -1D is the absence of 1D.

"absence of 1D" is simply the mirror image of "existence of 1D", where no one of them is considered as Emptiness (or Nothingness).

1D is not absent -- it just has been modified by the negative sign. Adding items to the preexisting ones doesn't automatically delete them, as the inclusion of the minus sign doesn't delete "1D." There are exceptions though: Go to the bathroom and look at your mirror image. If you don't see yourself in the mirror, then it is probably due to the Vampire Theorem of Dual Hemispheric Absence.

 

[The Man]

Your superposition principle is nothing but some particular case of real superposition that is not less than superposition of identities (a "white noise" of variables' identities).

Doron, you have claimed your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition, so it is specifically not, by your own assertions, “some particular case” of your ridiculous non-superposition “superposition”. Stop lying Doron.

You can't get real superposition by using the particular case of well defined identities.

Doron you can’t get that the explicit restriction of your ridiculous non-superposition “superposition” from using the principle of superposition was (and simply remains) entirely yours. As are whatever problems you seem to have with your own restriction.

In other words, instead of get things "beyond the box" you continue to be limited to your closed box by quoting articles that fit to your closed box.

By doing that you are cheating yourself, and you are doing it all along this thread.


My notions are based on the ability to use Spatial (right-hemisphere) AND Verbal (left-hemisphere) skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Your Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills can't get the notions of this comprehensive framework.

Furthermore, the scholars that stand behind your equated articles belong to a community that communicates by using mostly (if not only) Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills, and define "Rigor" only in terms of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.


It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron you can’t get that the explicit restriction of your ridiculous non-superposition “superposition” from using the principle of superposition was (and simply remains) entirely yours. As are whatever problems you seem to have with your own restriction.

The restriction is entirely yours.

For example you can't get that strict identities are some particular case of comprehensive framework, which deals also with non-strict identities, as briefly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7479082&postcount=16250.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7489486&postcount=16260 can't be comprehended by your restriction to strictness.

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

This is exactly what your left-hemisphere-only reasoning does.

For example you can't get anything that is not strict (A,B,...) identity.

 

[doronshadmi]

... connecting one post of mine pointing out you can contradict yourself ...

More of your "bla bla ..." "reasoning".

You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493671&postcount=16268.

 

[jsfisher]

More of your "bla bla ..." "reasoning".

I believe the response you meant was, "I got nothin'."

You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493671&postcount=16268.

You have no basis to assume that, but you do. You assume a great deal with no basis.

You also use your power of baseless assumption as a diversion. You have completely sidestepped the fact you contradicted yourself in the post I cited. You did this by trying to change the subject with your childish playground taunts.

The accusation stands: You contradicted yourself in the space of a few sentences.

 

[The Man]

I think that expansion doesn't help Doron (if he bothers to read) to take a simple look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect. A "standing wave" can be achieved through two radiation sources or one source through reflection, so the resulting wave doesn't really "stand." The resulting wave has a half of the original wavelength and a variable amplitude. The concept of "standing wave" can be utilized:

I doubt much here will help Doron, as that particular reference was directed at you the question you should be asking is did it help you. Given your assertion “look at the diffraction and the absence of frequency of EMR as a factor in the effect” the answer would appear to be ‘no, it didn’t’.

No one said that they are not -- frequency * wavelength = c -- and so adjusting the frequencies causes changes in the wavelength, but in the diffraction effect there are two main variables and one one of them is the length of the opening through which the light beam passes. That length cannot be adjusted by unit called Hertz, but by unit called meter, which is the unit the wavelength is measured with.

The former part of your post directly disputes that latter. Please epix, don’t start getting like Doron and directly contradicting yourself, nor assuming that since you simply choose you focus on wavelength, or just length in general, that the cited relation becomes somehow irrelevant. The inverse of frequency (Hz) is cycle period usually designated as t and measured in seconds. A light second is a measure of distance equal to about 299,792,458 meters. So 1 Hz, or one second for a cycle of a wave of light equals 299,792,458 meters. Reduce that by one meter and you get a distance of .999999996664 light seconds or 1.000000003336 Hz, meaning an increase of .000000003336 Hz for each meter decrease. Certainly more difficult to work in Hz and bit less intuitive as they are inversely related (decreased length per cycle means increased cycle per unit time) but certainly not something that “cannot be adjusted by unit called Hertz”. We tend to focus on aspects that are easier to work with and usually help to make things more intuitive. However, this by no means precludes us from working in whatever aspects the relations permit no matter how difficult or unintuitive they may seem.


Before you mentioned the wavelength as “beef of the laser technology -- to sneak through some obstacles without diffracting the beam.” and other references of a similar sort that tend to make me think that the fact that the wavelength (and wave’s vector of travel) is perpendicular to the opening, may not be clear to you. Is that the case?

 

[The Man]

The restriction is entirely yours.

For example you can't get that strict identities are some particular case of comprehensive framework, which deals also with non-strict identities, as briefly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7479082&postcount=16250.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7489486&postcount=16260 can't be comprehended by your restriction to strictness.

Doron, the claim that your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition was entirely yours. Stop lying.

This is exactly what your left-hemisphere-only reasoning does.

For example you can't get anything that is not strict (A,B,...) identity.

Again, stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, the claim that your “superposition” does not use the principle of superposition was entirely yours. Stop lying.

Your principle of superposition is not real superposition, because it is based on strict identities.

Real superposition is not less than superposition of identities.

Again, stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

Again, stop lying first of all to yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have completely sidestepped the fact you contradicted yourself in the post I cited.

The fact is that you can't distinguish between "the absence of X" and "Nothingness".

------------------

Furthermore, you are a hypocrite.

First you attack

It's great to see you have found new material to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent.

Then you discover that the new material (that I "misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent") was written by M.S. El Naschie and your "music" is changed to

Now, I understand Doron's affinity.

In other words, your "bla bla ..." twisted maneuvers do not impress anyone here (for example, you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426118&postcount=16171 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426018&postcount=16169 but it does not prevent from you to air your "bla bla ..." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426067&postcount=16170 ill view).

 

[jsfisher]

You have completely sidestepped the fact you contradicted yourself in the post I cited.

The fact is that you can't distinguish between "the absence of X" and "Nothingness".

Work on your reading comprehension. That is not where your contradiction lies.

Furthermore, you are a hypocrite.

First you attack

It's great to see you have found new material to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent.

...which you did...

Then you discover that the new material (that I "misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent") was written by M.S. El Naschie and your "music" is changed to

Now, I understand Doron's affinity.

Really, work on that reading comprehension thing.

There is nothing hypocritical nor contradictory in pointing out (1) you regularly misunderstand, misinterpret, and misrepresent what others have written, and (2) you have an affinity for cranks.

They are independent statements.