Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<ScydnXHCHK_AjHX6nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:27:25 +0000 Subject: Re: The Suspicious Journals of Ross A. Kosmanson :-) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math References: <vrt4e1$bjf1$1@solani.org> <vs1kn7$drcf$1@solani.org> <vs77ub$gego$1@solani.org> <SkydnQYTmaWP03r6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <vs7vuk$gnbc$1@solani.org> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:27:25 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <vs7vuk$gnbc$1@solani.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <ScydnXHCHK_AjHX6nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> Lines: 133 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-ZhaGZ1FBs2V021f2l/pexx5Fg+Kyr9/2pWQf/5s1d2vVn2rZlDx1LjWhnl3oRe/2KjiM+44oyeNLRRN!P4WkONNmI7EiXX1fT+xF/upKp9HFomBmMrpygzY6Xckm8m2Zc7yNGnfcATr/Gx4ozLWOQTJwqVQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 7950 On 03/28/2025 10:20 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: > On 3/28/25 8:33 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 03/28/2025 03:30 PM, Physfitfreak wrote: >>> >>> >>> On The Ontological Vacillation of Platonist Physics >>> >>> As a Platonist, I perceive the abstract symmetries of Einstein’s theory >>> as more real than the empirical shadows they cast. The decomposition of >>> elements — whether in nuclear reactions or the diffraction of thought — >>> reveals a hyper-geometric dance of ontological structures, where local >>> and global vacillate like Mirimanoff’s forcing in set theory. >>> >>> Total field theory, that grand unification of GR before SR, demands an >>> eschewal of positivism, for non-locality whispers through the cosmic >>> background like Plotinus’ emanations. The energy-mass equivalence, >>> Einstein’s sacred formula, is but a shadow of a deeper logicism, where >>> numerical derivations truncate into approximations, much like Clairaut’s >>> lunar perturbations or d’Alembert’s waves bending around the Loch Ness >>> monster of causality. >>> >>> Delving into a mental representation or understanding of something, >>> whether it's Physfit's dick, or a process, knowledge, or an abstract >>> idea oscillates between restitution and dissipation, an eternal ballet >>> dance between organization and entropy. Open or closed its horizons, >>> that dick defies Suarez’s scholastic binaries, just as Arnauld’s rigor >>> clashes with Mersenne’s harmonies. Its gravity, that centrifugal >>> trickster, warps space-time into relativistic nanogyroscopes, spinning >>> like Chrysippus’ fate. >>> >>> I am acutely aware of my own insignificance in the grand calculus of >>> Atlantis’ ruin — no cataclysm would be wrought for my sake alone. >>> Rationally, I hold no sway over the nuclear alchemy permeating the >>> stagnant air, nor does the diffraction grating harbor any vindictive >>> intent as it threatens to unravel my form. Yet when I gaze into the >>> obsidian waters and confront that spectral inversion of myself — not my >>> reflection, but the phantom of a being from a universe where positivism >>> triumphed — I am overcome by an inescapable conviction. It stands as >>> irrefutable evidence: I am being quantified, scrutinized, and anatomized >>> by none other than physfit's dick whose nature eludes all nomenclature. >>> >>> >>> Ross A. Kosmanson >>> March 28, 2025 >>> In the lost city of Atlantis where air smells of ozone >> >> Maybe if you cut out "Physfit's dick" >> for something like "the Primal Lingam". >> >> > > > Hmm.. Alternatively, replacing every reference to the "Primal Lingam" in > the literature with "Physfit’s dick" would amplify that same sense. > > Well, you know, about the usual attachments of the creative drive, for example that gonads have grey matter and sometimes do some thinking, the idea is that here we're talking about a somewhat larger concept than, "Physfit's dick", as with regards to that then it's about both the masculine and feminine concepts and otherwise usual notions of the cycles of creation, that it's to be beyond the mundane psycho-sexual aspects, though as they're present in the human condition, there's a general idea that such notions as desires associated with the biological and psycho-sexual, may and should be a nice place to visit, yet as well are associated with the fallacies of the senses, and as well the bete humaine. Then in that sense as that there's an idealism of the creative of nature that even primitive peoples were aware of the theory and practice of biological reproduction and as well the drives, of the sexual and psycho-sexual, has that mostly it's not a thing, in the technical, then that to be so it's the ideals, sort of an absolute. So, where "Suarez and DesCartes and Mersenne", are ideals, that Socrates is not merely a man yet his school, then school of a man (a person), of these schools of men (people), has here that Socrates is immortal, and for example that Arnauld is a great logician and with regards to the technical in as well what's a theological setting, then that it is not so great the significance of Arnauld's personhood, as his larger body of work, Arnauld the man, Arnauld the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Arnauld https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1686a.pdf Then, in reading something like Leibniz' correspondences with Arnauld, the "truth" in what we'd have in a theory today is all given to deity, much like when reading Heidegger, as one translater puts it, whenever you read "Sein" in Heidegger, it's not distinguished from his conception or idea of the absolute, and the Absolute the definite article. Now, one needn't adapt any particular monotheism to have that there's still truth, and one may adopt a particular monotheism to have that there's a real truth. It can even be a sort of generic in that way. "Arnauld now switches to a new topic, Leibniz’s paper ‘Brief demonstration of a memorable error of the Cartesians’, which Leibniz had sent to him along with the letters of July 1686.] I have studied your little article and found it very sub- tle. But be warned: the Cartesians may be able to answer you that your attack doesn’t hurt them because it seems to assume something that they believe to be false, namely when a falling stone speeds up during its fall, it gives itself that increasing velocity. They will say • that this acceleration comes from the corpuscles · that the falling stone displaces · , which as they rise cause everything they find in their path to fall, and transfer to them a part of their motion; and • that it’s therefore not surprising that body B, having four times · the mass of · body A, has more motion when it has fallen one foot than A has after falling four feet. It’s because the corpuscles that have pushed A or B have communicated to that body motion proportionate to its mass. I don’t say that this reply is correct, but I think you should at least work on it to see whether it achieves anything. And I would really like to know what the Cartesians have said about your paper. . . ." (Here we can see a reflection on DesCartes' theory of "subtle matter" which is non-Newtonian, in not violating conservation of energy, yet offers explanation of the theory of gravity as heralds Fatio and LeSage.) Anyways your Epicurean (mis-)translation of "Kosmanson" doesn't quite fulfill that to which he alludes, for what stands in to it.