Revamping Meaning and Theory

[tflofasho]

Wow... I'm just completed awestruck and dumbfounded. I can definitely see why you'd say and be the same also. Dude; that is seriously something you noticed there. Not even I can be able to get my head around that one. That's way out there for even the 1%ers...

So the 3 dimensions you're talking about: are they the 3 forces of motion you've repeatedly mentioned over the course of this thread? Or am I misunderstanding something completely? Cuz this is like... beyond advanced level stuff right there...

Because what you mentioned is easier said than completely understood.

I'm still trying to let the idea of relativity marinate cuz I literally based a lot of my functional core foundations on that easy principle, only to realize it's a fabricated construct with limits too. That's hard to wake up to. Talk about rude awakening! Hahaha

 

[tflofasho]

What would I have to do to change the way I look at it? Like zoom out and see that paradigm shift like you can; so I too can get, see and understand it also. I want to break out of that structural mold so that I too can see past the 3D and constructed measurement theories also. I want to break out of that mold to help see it all clearly. That's why.

 

[Einstein]

So now you are beginning to see why I choose observable fact over the fiction taught in the schools. But the thing is the academic community continues with their farce. The latest farce is the release of another gravity wave detection. Only you and I can never verify it. And we would have to give up all those facts I presented to you. Then we would have to believe relativity was correct. And of course believe what they tell us. It's fake science.

I don't think learning facts is hard at all. It's finding them in the first place. Most of the knowledge about gravity and the inertial force and centrifugal force you already know. These forces you experience daily in everything you do. So it is easy to relate to readily observable facts.

The 3 dimensions I so frequently talk about seems to be the playing field where our reality exists within. 3D space has room for 3 2D planes of rotation. It's that rotation that is the pattern I see that links 3D space to basic forces that exist outside 3D space. Remember I said I don't have a group of forces yet to occupy the third 2D plane in 3D space. Yet those forces would be in observations that are probably already in existence. So rather than make something up, I'll just take a wait and see attitude to see if there are some observations I haven't come across yet.

 

[tflofasho]

Gotcha. Thanks for catching me up to speed.

I guess if anything, this is probably where the trail cools off from here.

But what I'm interested in are the 3 sets of 2D and the space outside of the 3D. And chances are, as they already say: It's already been made up and thought about, so that shouldn't be a surprised. Academia is funny like that.

But if you could describe them and put them to words, rather than "making something up" what would they be simply?

 

[Einstein]

The academic community is pushing forth the narrative that all forces exist within 4D space. Which is a theory.

I'm just pushing for the facts instead. For instance you can ask questions that don't have answers. They may never have answers. Facts don't work like that. And you can't steer them in the direction you want. You have to accept the facts as they are. I know there are some people that would be at odds with that. But we didn't create the universe. In order to understand it we just have to be patient and observe.

I don't have enough info on how to describe what is outside 3D space. But It has become apparent to me that time reversal can occur separately on each of the 2D planes in 3D space. At least on the two that I have groups of forces that work together on.

I pointed out motion is occurring in a circular path for the EM induction force and the inertial-centrifugal force to produce what appears to be a time reversed situation. The circular path is 2 dimensional. One circular 2D path for inetial-centifugal force. And one circular 2D path for EM induction. The EM induction force behaves just like the inertial-centrifugal force. The EM induction force pushes the charge in the opposite direction it would choose to go. Just like when we accelerate in a car, the car goes in the opposite direction that the inertial force is pushing. There has to be motion for this to occur. These two types of circular motion are completely different from each other yet they seem to follow the same rules.

 

[tflofasho]

I've got a super good and very important question to ask:

Is testing for validity and reliability legit or bullshit?

Are they a stupid useless constructed model as well, or not?

 

[Harte]

Validity and reliability, as I know them, are used for survey results. The concepts used to test for each are completely solid mathematically.
In science, repeatability is what is required.

Harte

 

[tflofasho]

Validity and reliability, as I know them, are used for survey results. The concepts used to test for each are completely solid mathematically.
In science, repeatability is what is required.

Harte

Wow; finally, a non smart ass snarky remark from you for once. And to think I'd assume you'd poke me with a desperately weak remark as the apophysis to your argument. I guess people can and still will surprise me from time to time. Go figure lol

You've hit the nail on the mark, but we do that to validate the thought of the literature juxtaposed to reality with the physical experiments in science, aka your repeatability to see how good and reliable it really is with the scales and measures we use to quantify certain things we're basically testing for. That's what it all basically is really. It's to compare and contrast the data sets with the concreteness of the thought behind the literature juxtaposed to how it reflects off reality, that's what we all basically come and use it for and there's lots of crazy weird ugly glitches that come and cause that kind of things in the literature only to come and point out weaknesses, limits and deficits in the literature/thought when tested in reality.

But yeah; thanks man for not ripping my head off, I usually get apprehensive whenever you post something completely silly or rather snarky like time flipper who only likes to troll people with crappy half baked jokes that aren't really that comically hilarious to begin with really... Thanks for contributing to the discussion and actually taking it seriously. I really appreciate it. =D

 

[Harte]

Well, it wasn't a stupid post - this time.

Better?

Harte