Scientific Experimental Bugs.


Scientific Experimental Bugs.
Scientific Experimental Bugs

I aggressively tackled problems in theoretical and mathematical logic. In many of those cases, I relied on experimental and logical measurements to show clear contrasts. Many will attempt to inappropriately use experimental "measurements" to argue against Nature's logical methodologies driving those experiments. It's accurate to claim that I value experiments because their logical outcomes are beyond our interpretations. Therefore, outcomes for experiments are how they are for your tools and their arrangements. Those depend on how you set up each mechanism by which you made your measurements. This window ,to set and adjust experimental preparations, is where science and mental abstractions can become corrosive. In my examples above, I have a lever and a high quality scale measuring weights for each ball. I place some hypothetical bugs in each experiment to represent gaps between Nature's input and outcomes versus sensory anticipations. Do you recognize what these bugs are? They are the tools themselves. Inherent in these tools are settings that we can't totally account for yet. That ,plus our arrangements with types of material objects used (ball, wood, etc.), factor into the inherent bug which causes Nature's outcomes and inputs to differentiate from symbolic inputs. This is why elite scientists demand equal settings which increase their practicality for equal outcomes from their researches. If outcomes are different, a symbolic conversion factor is utilize to arrive at a symbolically different , but "accurate" outcome. That's another bug. Who is accurate? The lever or the scale? There are many different materials and other structural arrangements that we might not know about due to epistemological limits. I rank those arrangements under Quality.  Who can say , "My tool measures reality most appropriately and more accurately?". They can't ,Numbskull, because Nature operates the way it does for each material. If that's not discouraging enough, we implant our own mind rots into these experiments by converting their outcomes into linear and shallow symbolic values. Mathematical symbols designed as pixels, sound, and text representing quantitative distances, areas, and ultimately unique instructions. Yet ,not only are these abstractions reinterpreted to be one dimensional, their idea of a quantity is already on poor foundations if you've properly read this blog. The only piece of common ground that I found throughout these scientific and mathematical endeavors was "NATURE'S LOGIC". The logic behind each measurement is similar. How resistive is this material to the frequency of material occurrence? Base on how resistive it is, what are my outcomes? 

To conclude, "symbolic measurement" is different from "experimental outcomes". Real , or Nature's, inputs and outcomes occur without "measurements". Scientific and mathematical ill-logics aren't either of those. Human logic is a mirage framework where methodological commonalities can be recognized and test against reality's logical occurrences. Human logic can turn out to be illogical and disagree with reality's logical reasons or steps taken for outputs.    Anti-DEI scientists love equal settings and outcomes for their experiments, but they are total hypocrites when applying those rules where it might be disadvantageous for their developments, privileges, tribes, and "lineages". That's not an ideal standard in a highly develop society. You can develop your own way by remembering where these bugs are which fester in their legacy principles. 

General Contents

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Isaac Newton Defeated

Image
  Isaac Newton's Gravitational Formula.  First thing to acknowledge is that Isaac Newton does not use a quantitative measure even though mass(quantity of matter) is label as a variable in his equations. His methods are proportional, and I'll link to some statements that I made clarifying differences between quantitative and proportional operations. Once you've understood these instructions, you can easily manipulate symbolic mathematical fabrications to conform to prior results through proportional manipulation. These methods alone don't completely  reproduce reality's outcomes or difficulties managing quantitative operations. Quantitative instructions have limitations and do not easily induce disordered confusion through subtracting, or ill-mannered addition of variables through proportional manipulation. I further that limitation by abandoning use for negative numbers, which removes information. 0.98 acceleration ,for the greater mass, flies into Dialect's fac...
Read more

Almighty Darkness

Image
Darker Daimon's Logic. Darkness is a concept of the mind. It is pure abstraction in mental frameworks . In constructs of Darkness,  Logic  is materialize by consistent and predictable  instructions . Inconsistencies and randomness possess no bodies in the darkest of realms because they're attributes for those whom seek blinding light.   With careful curtail sensibility to reason, all entities deriving from dark abstractions should convert to physical or external  reality. These  interpretations  can only be found here and another place. All other names have no association with me or my developments.  Darker Daimon's Logic. General Contents
Read more

Compatibility: 0.5 Plus 1 Dimension

Image
  Magnetic Cycles and Artificial Gravity Modulus Function First things come first, you'll have to understand prior dimensional instructions to understand what lead me here. You can catch up here if you hadn't:  Compatibility: 0.5 Dimension  . Artificial Gravity's inception and methods were introduced here:  Distance(Remaining Time)  .Alright, I'll try to make it shorter than prior posts, but you can't take my word for it at this injunction. The major difference here is with the notion of 2D. Second dimension, according to me, does not possess an inherent directional structure that emerges from entities settling or balancing into a 2d environment. What's unique to 2D is spin or rotation. Because 1D requires ranges of dense threshold levels across traveled distances, the entirety of 1D objects, and dependencies on density, it lacks the potential to reorient itself , as a unified whole, even though it can traverse directionally. More conflicting constituencies decr...
Read more