Theoretical Models of Nature and Motion for a Law of Base Reality

[tflofasho]

So; I kind of noticed something that people don’t pay attention to or focus on with the data sets of their research, and mostly never really focus on the outliers or inverses of those sets they collect.

People have been far too focused on the models of the mechanics of their machines and the harvesting of those natural materials, but not so much as focus on the natural flow or order of the world around us in nature and how to use that to our benefit in being able to cause such a shift in going in a different temporal direction or location. Infact, they don’t even think about the potential outcomes that will come after working on it And the influential impact that may have.

Aside from the physical laws of nature and motion, what else should be called into question aside from the schematics of those machines? Is our definition and understanding of the physical laws of nature flawed and defunct? Is the literature defective and needs to be called into question again? Obviously it is lol It’s always a political game of he said she said of who basically funds them to have it published the way they want it.

Can there be something in nature to be able to help harvest and generate a means of natural motion to manipulate the directional flow of time/movement in an opposite direction instead? I can already see catastrophic events going against the natural order with that one, unless there is a way to create one that helps coexist with it, like the bullet train. Any takers for better simple solutions and start over on the drawing board?

 

[Einstein]

Eliminate equations as the basis of our reality. Focus on the data instead. Funny how the equations never quite predict a data set.

 

[lamdo263]

Eliminate equations as the basis of our reality. Focus on the data instead. Funny how the equations never quite predict a data set.

You might add by base law, that this could apply to you wherever and what reality you're in. This could be a beautiful naked lady in a reality to where I have pets that eat something like dust.

 

[tflofasho]

Eliminate equations as the basis of our reality. Focus on the data instead. Funny how the equations never quite predict a data set.

Can you even form data without an equation?

 

[Einstein]

Can you even form data without an equation?

The data comes first. There is no reason to make an equation out of it. Does Gold equal Coal? Just set it up as an equation so it does! With math a proportionality is required to set up an equality. But in the real world it doesn't work that way. Unless you are taught that it does. But I honestly think it would take some type of Fairy or Leprechaun magic to make it work. Of course no one seems to be able to produce equalities in the real world. Unless you are willing to believe the bullshit coming out of the academic community.

 

[tflofasho]

The data comes first. There is no reason to make an equation out of it. Does Gold equal Coal? Just set it up as an equation so it does! With math a proportionality is required to set up an equality. But in the real world it doesn't work that way. Unless you are taught that it does. But I honestly think it would take some type of Fairy or Leprechaun magic to make it work. Of course no one seems to be able to produce equalities in the real world. Unless you are willing to believe the bullshit coming out of the academic community.

Here’s my question:

Where does that normative standard derive from? How does one construct one if one doesn‘t exist?

Does it just pop up out of nowhere randomly? Or do you set a baseline to help calibrate that scale to extract data?

You have to construct a scale first before you can create and extract data from what construct you’re assessing.

 

[tflofasho]

You might add by base law, that this could apply to you wherever and what reality you're in. This could be a beautiful naked lady in a reality to where I have pets that eat something like dust.

Yeah; you hit the nail on the head there with the base law bit. Draw a baseline.

You have to compare it to a normative standard prototype or some other kind of archetypical stereotype you come across. Basically; in cog psych; they like to call these strawman construct models of -ists and -isms into categorical -types.

 

[Einstein]

Here’s my question:

Where does that normative standard derive from? How does one construct one if one doesn‘t exist?

Does it just pop up out of nowhere randomly? Or do you set a baseline to help calibrate that scale to extract data?

You have to construct a scale first before you can create and extract data from what construct you’re assessing.

I was taught the basic model in calculus. X=kY is a basic equation allowing one to set two different quantities equal to each other. The k is the proportionality constant. It works fine with numbers. But then Newton came along and used the basic equation model and applied it to Force and Acceleration. Two different phenomena were set equal to each other. The constant of proportionality created was called Mass. I have yet to see a physical representation of Mass. Looks fine on paper. and I was tricked into believing Weight balanced against Weight was actually Mass. It's not, no magic was used. Just hocus focus and bullshit.

 

[tflofasho]

I was taught the basic model in calculus. X=kY is a basic equation allowing one to set two different quantities equal to each other. The k is the proportionality constant. It works fine with numbers. But then Newton came along and used the basic equation model and applied it to Force and Acceleration. Two different phenomena were set equal to each other. The constant of proportionality created was called Mass. I have yet to see a physical representation of Mass. Looks fine on paper. and I was tricked into believing Weight balanced against Weight was actually Mass. It's not, no magic was used. Just hocus focus and bullshit.

Yeah; I figured as much. It’s the mind/body objective/subjective dichotomy.

Problem of constructing something out of naturally sourced nothing to make sense of something.

Constant of Prop sounds like Gustav Fechner’s model of Psychophysics of testing and measuring repeated trials to observe and notice any just noticeable differences, relative to whatever model of measurement theory one applies.

In Kinesiology; like in Rocket Science; Force was used to measure “Mass.” No different than the laws of motion “low key” measuring oxygen density within the environment on the basis that air is another form of water, just less dense. Think of the air/oxygen as the canvas Board to calibrate the scale off of, and any noticeable differences are measured.

The law of gravity is constant; relative to the level of elevation it’s at. Therefore: more oxygen = more friction/resistance. Too much matter in the space of so called “thin air.” It becomes an issue of: is there space, matter or both? All it does is measure spatial displacements between one point in time, relative to the next one from point A to point whatever. The only thing it keeps trying and failing to do is account for all those variables into the picture aside from the observer effect.

That’s usually the problem by the end of the day. The learned potential imprint abstraction is hard to apply “ON PAPER.”

That’s why it can’t reflect well once the model doesn’t reflect reality; it’s simply the weight of the mass of the ink and paper constitute when looking at the figures to observe what the hell is going on. That’s why things are “falling apart.”

In a nutshell; certain variables are still not taken into consideration when looking and assessing the analysis. People aren’t greasing the grooves. That’s why.

 

[tflofasho]

The other thing is:

Science has it’s Holy Trinity to calibrate a scale. And if it’s broken, it basically falls apart:

Newtons Laws of Motion
The Bayesian Theorem
The Heisenberg Principle (The Observer Effect)

That’s why Schroedinger challenged the models that came before about the hypothetical “what if?”

The whole issue with “predictive modeling” or Structural Equation Modeling of testing models to see what results and effects you get and narrow down the variables down to significant features to notice any observable effects.

The modeled methods and tech wasn’t able to observe the natural effect field of the phenomena being observed. That’s basically what he noticed with quantum entanglement of a spooky action at a distance. It’s just light refracting within a field effect pool. That’s basically what was naturally being observed and going on, the tech, models and info wasn’t made available then to help make sense what was observed then at that time. I’m sure it’s the same if you run smoke thru it. Easier to see, hard to strain.

The issue being “standardization” of modeling. That’s basically the real issue really lol

The p-value probability is supposed to be a hypothetical reflective hypothetical pool that supposedly gives “results.”

Therefore; once again, it’s a socially constructed social construct. Has range and limits of explaining rationale of things.