PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Mathmatics Vs. Empirical Math


SlightlySlightedFan
03-04-2006, 03:58 PM
I don't mean to disrespect anyone with this question, that being known 1st, here it is.
Why is SM different from EM?
The differences are striking,

The planet's circumferences are waaay different.

The speed of sound is usually found as measured through water. This figure changes when drag is present, so it could be any number with the right amount of resistance factored in.

Earth's Land Mass is off in SM by a paltry 418 Million Sq Km
Earth's Water Mass is off by only 76 Million Sq Km

Without getting too much deeper into converting and comparing measurement units, I'll only say that the differences are evident right upfront.

So why aren't these numbers changed to reflect actual numbers?

My theory is that this is impossible, due to the fact that in SM these numbers have a deeper meaning than I can gauge at a glance.

When posting please do not state that these SM numbers are actual numbers. Don't say for example that a vast conspiracy is covering up for the validity of SM measurements Vs. scientific findings.

I'll only tell you you're wrong.

Being that we would be discussing science and philosophy, let's discuss it with respect to either sides personal investment in the matters.

LHX
03-04-2006, 05:01 PM
well

seeing as there is no precise way to measure a lot of this stuff

maybe there isnt all that much to discuss




also
one of the main purposes of supreme math is to broaden the perspective of the person learning it

so
instead of having their mind on their block
they think about their planet

SlightlySlightedFan
03-05-2006, 06:24 AM
Good answer.
Except,
there are very precise ways to measure this stuff.

LHX
03-05-2006, 07:23 AM
when total land mass is changing every second

i dont see how

DigitalScience
03-05-2006, 12:30 PM
all of that stuff if your talkin about 120 and the LNF (Lost Found Muslims Lessons from the NOI) all of that shit is metaphorical. They sayin one thing but mean somethin else.

Aqueous Moon
03-05-2006, 02:52 PM
Why do you use "empirical math" as absolute truth?

What makes it more valid??

Wamukota X
03-06-2006, 07:04 AM
Good question.

SlightlySlightedFan
03-06-2006, 10:04 AM
True, we live on a changing world.
So, they use satellite imagery these days to see whats what.
In the old days they had to rely on explorers and very basic surveyying equipment.
I use Empirical Math as an absolute truth because that's what it is. It's an absolute.
Empirical math and science don't deal with philosophy, so we have to fill in the blank.
To say the very least about this, I'm interested. I'm interested to see what kind of philosophy drives people to make the astounding changes within themselves and outwards towards they're community, to make they're world make better sense.
Not that I believe it myself, or really even could at this stage.
Mine is simple, I think science is the only true thing. And science is only true in a very thin sense, only until it's debunked or added on to.
But that's me, not you.
Science never stopped a person from doing something horrendous, or having it done to them, philosophy, often has.
It's interesting, to say the least.

LHX
03-06-2006, 10:44 AM
science often ignores its own short-comings


why does everybody know einstein
but
not heisenberg?

SlightlySlightedFan
03-06-2006, 11:11 AM
Rarely.
Peer bashing in science is a lot like that present in Hip Hop.
Scientists have to have approval for they're peers. When a peer can beat down another scientists findings, they always do.

LHX
03-06-2006, 11:30 AM
yeah
but
the really good shit always stays under ground


why would you defend such a ridiculous position?


heisenbergs work blasts a hole in the western mind with an effect equalled only by a brain on drugs

einsteins work blasts holes in the planet
easily understandable by people with no insight

SlightlySlightedFan
03-07-2006, 09:00 AM
What?

The heisenberg principle is something like, you can't predict where an electron will end up once pushed by a force. Or you can't know what it's path had been during the trip from A to B.
And Einstein's work, well it's a bit bigger.

So the only holes I can imagine you talking about are the ones made by bombs built using these principles or maybe the black holes in space which these principles are used to observe and quantify.

People without insight can indeed easily understand this stuff. That's where the beauty of the science is, it's simple on the surface, and hugely complex underneath. That's where they're comin from.

Decipha Born
03-07-2006, 10:03 AM
Show and prove that supreme mathematics is not exercised through observation and scientific conclusions. In fact you would have to study such a field in order to dismiss it.

philosophy is search of wisdom.
The advancment of technology is an understanding of wisdom which creates a new idea or invention.
For example.
A fool(opposed to being wise) cannot build a satelite.

But a fool will misuse it according to a universal truth which creates an objective for a common cause.....looking at me.

This is really a debate between natural mind and technology.

Some have the ability to manipulate technological invettions with powerful thought, infact with supereme mathematics some are studying this and will advance.

Ra nefer amen made a note of how western thought builds things while eastern thought builds people.


Then this becomes of debate between Black science and white sceince.


Philosophy was needed to create technology.


Empiracal math is and attribute of supreme math.......


study.

PEACE

LHX
03-07-2006, 10:35 AM
What?

The heisenberg principle is something like, you can't predict where an electron will end up once pushed by a force. Or you can't know what it's path had been during the trip from A to B.
And Einstein's work, well it's a bit bigger.

So the only holes I can imagine you talking about are the ones made by bombs built using these principles or maybe the black holes in space which these principles are used to observe and quantify.

People without insight can indeed easily understand this stuff. That's where the beauty of the science is, it's simple on the surface, and hugely complex underneath. That's where they're comin from.

classic example of what i am talking about

everybody knows einstein
nobody knows heisenberg

there is a reason



if they taught the principle of uncertainty and explored all the implications of it in high school

90% of the students would drop out and move to southern asia or northern africa



(not good for america inc)

SlightlySlightedFan
03-07-2006, 03:14 PM
That I learned the uncertainty principle in high school.
And please don't say,
that I went to a good high school.
Because I didn't.
My school was for people who were kicked out of real high schools.
I just had,
an extremely good physics teacher.

What I didn't learn in high school.
What I guess I always knew.
Was that something like god,
Is simply too complex to express in simple mathmatic terms.
And that all that people can ever learn of god.
Is another person's interpretation of such.
Which doesn't scratch the surface.
Therefore.
I think.
It is you that should study.
Things like repeating patterns and sequences.
Fibonacci.
That exist everywhere around you.
Stephen Hawking maybe.
Maybe Newton, who you will find.
Was brilliant.
But what nobody knew until recently was,
that Newton spent his life chasing down god.
And found nothing.
It's not for us to know.
As far as black and white science.
It's not an issue.
Not with science.
Science is impersonal.
And universal.

LHX
03-07-2006, 07:16 PM
the world needs more stephen hawking like it needs a hole in the head


'its not for us to know'
dont cry when you find out



its all love
peace

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
spiral out
keep spinnin

Aqueous Moon
03-07-2006, 09:18 PM
Show and prove that supreme mathematics is not exercised through observation and scientific conclusions. In fact you would have to study such a field in order to dismiss it.

philosophy is search of wisdom.
The advancment of technology is an understanding of wisdom which creates a new idea or invention.
For example.
A fool(opposed to being wise) cannot build a satelite.

But a fool will misuse it according to a universal truth which creates an objective for a common cause.....looking at me.

This is really a debate between natural mind and technology.

Some have the ability to manipulate technological invettions with powerful thought, infact with supereme mathematics some are studying this and will advance.

Ra nefer amen made a note of how western thought builds things while eastern thought builds people.


Then this becomes of debate between Black science and white sceince.


Philosophy was needed to create technology.


Empiracal math is and attribute of supreme math.......


study.

PEACE

Co - sign^^...Perfectly put, Born...as always.

LHX
03-08-2006, 12:24 AM
That I learned the uncertainty principle in high school.
And please don't say,
that I went to a good high school.
Because I didn't.
My school was for people who were kicked out of real high schools.
I just had,
an extremely good physics teacher.


is this the autobiography thread?


What I didn't learn in high school.
What I guess I always knew.
Was that something like god,
Is simply too complex to express in simple mathmatic terms.
And that all that people can ever learn of god.
Is another person's interpretation of such.
Which doesn't scratch the surface.

?


Therefore.
I think.
It is you that should study.

all day every day


Things like repeating patterns and sequences.
Fibonacci.
That exist everywhere around you.
Stephen Hawking maybe.
Maybe Newton, who you will find.
Was brilliant.
But what nobody knew until recently was,
that Newton spent his life chasing down god.
And found nothing.
It's not for us to know.
As far as black and white science.
It's not an issue.
Not with science.
Science is impersonal.
And universal.

your ability to name the names of scientists is impressive

so are your zen 101 interpretations