This is the evil timeline!
Give it up, folks. He can’t do the math. He doesn’t even know the difference between a circular argument and the transitive property.
Bertrand Russell at one point was convinced (actually, dismayed) that all of math is basically a tautology. Well, duh! Of course it is, looked at in a certain way. 1 + 1 = 2 is a tautology in the sense that it’s (a restatement of) the definition of 1 and 2 and addition. (OK, it’s shorthand for a much longer discussion starting with 0 and defining S(0) = 1, and S(1) = 2, and then defining addition … but you get my point.)
But he’s not making Russell’s point. It’s pure intellibabble. It sounds like he’s saying something, but he’s clearly not, because he can’t show his work, can’t do the math, and can’t make a novel prediction that could be tested.
There is only one refutable claim he’s made, which is that he’s a contribution to knowledge. That claim is refuted by his own posts. He’s not interested in learning anything (thus his responses to criticism), and he’s not interested in teaching anything because he hasn’t explained anything, all he’s done is made unsubstantiated claims and posted weak arguments defending nebulous positions.
Move on folks! Nothing to see here, but a train wreck.
Your declaration undermines your imperative.
“There is a simple reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity don’t mesh well…because these “spaces” aren’t touching each other. That’s what a dimensions is - how many points in space are needed to describe something. It is completely and obviously related to the SIZES of objects. WE are in the middle and therefore KNOW both ends exist. But even we can only SEE one end. Ironically, we FEEL the other end. And while math may transcend these boundaries at the intersection where WE exist, what use is that if we’re going to allow math to dictate to us what all of space is. Math is orderly enough to describe both earth-space and outer space with the same deft stroke, but it’s simultaneously so unbelievably stupid that it can’t tell the difference between earth-space and outer space. Why are so many of you ok with allowing something that stupid to interpret reality for you? Yes it can describe it, and with much accuracy, but interpret it requires actual THINKING? People have forgotten how to THINK as we’ve lazily allow math to do the thinking for us. I love math, always have, and will for a bit longer, but it cannot contextualize reality…at best, it can only partially define what is already there.”
I resisted commenting for a long, long time, and while I am only contributing to this messy thread, I just couldn’t resist.
It was never meant to. That’s like complaining about why a hammer can’t screw nails in. The interpretation is intuitively done by the humans using the tool.
The problem is, we can’t “think” of Special Relativity. It required math. It also required advanced instrumentation. We can’t see it without augmented instruments: accurate time-pieces being very, very high on that list.
Thinking is great, but it has limitations. The Philosophic Method is fun, but it can’t transcend its own premises. The Scientific Method kicks its butt from here to 61 Cygni and back, by focusing on questions for which the answers can be tested for rightness or wrongness.
You can think till you’re blue, and no come any closer to knowing if God is unitary, dual, triple – or triune – or multiple in nature. For every reason you might favor one, there is as good a reason to favor another.
Science is the ultimate citizen of Missouri: Show Me! Produce results. Show me the solution changing color or temperature; show me the atomic clock that displays a different elapsed time than its exact duplicate, when one travels around the world and the other doesn’t.
No amount of thinking would ever have solved the twin paradox. No amount of thinking would ever have originated it! Math is the ONLY language in which these things can even be framed.
THANK YOU!
I go crazy when I hear stuff like “If you can’t tell it to me in English then it’s not true. You can’t build a washing machine using math.” Just because an individual is not capable of understanding a concept, that doesn’t negate the concept.
…not sure what you’re saying here, but I’m just going to assume you’re wrong.
I would say “I hate you” if that hadn’t made me laugh out loud. 
meanwhile, trapped in another timeline, Anthem is furiously attempting to reply to this thread via an abacus.
…and actual thread.
Wow, it only took me just over a week to get through all of this! (I got a late start 
).
Not much to add, except that I thought of a better example of a sign change causing reality to “invert” on itself. Perhaps not in line with what the original poster was saying, but if you have access to plotting software (such as Grapher in Mac OS X) try looking at the following:
x^2 + 2y^2 = 4
and
x^2 - 2y^2 = 4
Voila! An ellipse that inverts itself into a hyperbola.
One might then squint at the graph and say that the hyperbola is the equivalent of the ellipse as viewed from the other side of the universe, where minus infinity wraps around and becomes positive infinity. If you believe that kind of thing, of course.
But then, there are probably some who think that y = tan(x) is continuous for the same reason. 
See you all in a few weeks.
Peace.
My cat’s breath smells like cheese.
Haha, no way!
[hint]So if this post is the last one for a few weeks, then this thread should get buried pretty damn deep in the pile, right?[/hint]