User:Kmarinas86

The truth is out there!
Nature is an eternal mixture of wilderness and civilization.

About me

This user attends or attended the UNIVERSITY of HOUSTON	en-USThis user is a native speaker of American English.	This user does not smoke.
This user is a lapsed Catholic.	PsThis user contributes using Adobe Photoshop.	YAThis user is a young adult.
223+This user has made more than 223 contributions to Wikipedia.	This user believes in materialism, the belief that everything that exists is made of matter.	X This user is strictly apolitical.
This user is not a biological parent.	This user has never left the Northern Hemisphere.	._.This user sometimes watches anime.

Philosophical points of view

• Correspondence theory of truth
• Pragmatic theory of discovery
• Coherence theory of meaning
• Consensus theory of ignorance

Scientific Method = Empiricism + Rationalism + Verifiability + Falsifiability

Empiricism	A scientist's way of generating data. Compare to the pragmatic theory of discovery.
Rationalism	A scientist's way of generating guesses, from humble hypotheses to elegant theories. Compare to the coherence theory of meaning.
Verifiability	A measure of the scientist's ability to incorporate a result within a larger theoretical framework. Compare to the consensus theory of ignorance.
Falsifiability	A measure of the scientist's ability to detach or quarantine an idea from a larger theoretical framework. Compare to the correspondence theory of truth.

Outdated philosophers of science think it is just one or the other, but actually all are needed.

How to know if a conditional statement expresses a feeling, opinion, justification, or revelation

For some
quality,	feeling	justification
event,	opinion	revelation
there follows	a quality.	an event.

$O_{1}$, Event 1.

$O_{2}$, Event 2.

$O_{1}$, Quality 1.

$O_{2}$, Quality 2.

Feeling $Q_{1}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$

Opinion $E_{1}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$

Justification $Q_{1}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $\neg E_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $\neg E_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$

Revelation $E_{1}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow E_{2}$

Types of claims (in increasing order of objectivity).

FEELING: When the only elements of an "explanation" are states in attempt to explain a state, such an explanation is not subjectable to scientific or otherwise academic scrutiny, whether the statement is true or false.

Examples:

• "I feel sick" because "it's wet outside".
• "That person is cool" because "they look cool in those jeans".
• "It's hot" because "it's very nice".

OPINION: When the only elements of an "explanation" are event(s) in attempt to explain a state, such an explanation is subjectable to academic scrutiny, but not scientific scrutiny, whether the statement is true or false.

Examples:

• "I feel sick" because "I inhaled too much rain".
• "That person is cool" because "they've said nice things to me".
• "It's hot" because "our team won the game".

JUSTIFYING: When the only elements of an "explanation" are states in attempt to explain an event, such an explanation is subjectable to academic and scientific scrutiny whether the statement is true or false. But either the explanation begs the question about the state itself, or it is tautological fact. Such statements are not falsifiable given the limited context.

Examples:

• "My temperature is rising" because "I have a cold".
• "They've said nice things" because "they are nice people".
• "That person helped us win the game" because "her strategy was excellent".

REVEALING: When the only elements of an "explanation" are event(s) in attempt to explain an event, such an explanation is subjectable to academic and scientific scrutiny whether the statement is true or false. It is possible for this form not to beg the question, in light of explanations of the causal events, and the only tautologies that are allowed in this form are explicit, rather than implicit.

Examples:

• "My temperature is rising" because "I have caught flames on my sweater".
• "They've said nice things" because "they learn from other people who have said nice things to them".
• "That person helped us win the game" because "she scored the only points we needed to win".

Events vs. States

In general, events occur over longer periods of time, while states are relatively "instantaneous" to events. Adjectives often describe "states" which, due to their limitations, do not by themselves define the whole. One may be "bold" one day, but perhaps "shy" another day. As such, adjectives, not to mention pronouns too, are often the basis for stereotyping. Stereotyping is an ineffective, and often off-target, means of understanding novel and unfamiliar developments; such developments often arise from long term trends, and thus the premises of stereotyping, whose bets are against such larger trends, are undermined when subject to intense scrutiny or obvious change. Just as in impedance matching, where unmatched impedances do not allow for 100% information transfer, a direct relationship (i.e. 100% correlation that stems from 100% information transfer) cannot exist between things resulting from unmatched periods of time (e.g. there is no direct relationship between past developments and remanent artifacts and nor is there any direct relationship between remanent artifacts and future developments).

Therefore, feelings, which each relate a state amongst other state(s), and revelations, which each relate an event amongst other event(s), are the only things which may themselves correspond to the truth. However, empirical reality only allows us to fruitfully debate on matters relating to opinion or justification and not on matters relating to feelings or revelations.

100px

"People of the Earth, you fly in the heavens and your voices are carried to the four corners of the Earth by means of radio waves. So the time has come for you to know the truth. As it has been foretold, everything is happening now that the Earth has entered the Age of Aquarius. Certain people have already written about this, but no one believed them. Some 22,000 years ago your creators decided to start their work on Earth and everything that has happened since was anticipated [by your creators] because the movement of the galaxy implies this knowledge. The Age of Pisces was the age of Christ and his fishermen, and the Age of Aquarius, which follows, began in 1946. This is the era in which the people of Israel found their country again:[....]" The Book Which Tells... Raël (1974)

Quantum Mechanics (err... physics) needs Mach's principle to make sense out of the universe

Relativity of fields violates causality

If stability of an object varies by observer due each observer's individual acceleration or velocity in relation to that object, that would destroy causality. Therefore forces of stability should be invariant of the acceleration and velocity of the observer. So if causality is real, these forces must be derived from fields that intrinsically exist in each point in space. If fields are intrinsic to space, it makes intuitive sense that their computation is derived from the computation of variables that are also intrinsic to space.

Fields must be intrinsic to space to preserve causality

Instead of speaking of "reference frames", the intrinsic properties that exist at a location of space must be the result of the computation of all fields that interact at that point in space. These properties possess directionality and magnitude which are invariant with respect to the observer chosen. The observer, by definition, is located at a different point of space than the thing being observed, and all knowledge available to that observer exists only in that observer.

Relativity of fields violates Lorentz-invariance

The minimum condition for relativity of fields is that for a given position with respect to a particle, that particle's relative motion determines the line density surrounding it. This gives rise to the implication that line density is not intrinsic to space. For example, if many observers swarmed around the same particle in different paths, each observer would observe different line density patterns around that particle. Thus, relativity requires that line density is not a real entity and that, therefore, causality is violated. Therefore, a transformation applied to this system is required to violate that causality. Lorentz forces would be therefore subjective (based on the observer), and the result is a violation of Lorentz-invariance. Therefore, relativity is incompatible with classical physics that requires causality in the strictest sense.

Relativity of fields would lead to multiple universes

Take for example Mills' model for a rigid free electron disk. From the perspective of the external observer, the disk is a spinning disk of charge, and from the perspective of the disk of charge, the universe spins around it. To a distant observer, the charges in Mills' free electron disk model rotate around an axis, giving rise to a magnetic field with poles located at the center of the disk. However, a scientist studying this model and whose understanding is limited to the current understanding of man can easily assume that each charge in the disk has its own reference frame which rotates about its own axis at the same angular rate it revolves at exactly a right angle to the axis of the disk. If such reference frames were assumed, each charge in the disk, according to itself, cannot be affected by the collective magnetic field of the disk, for according to it, such a field would be non-existent. As a result, from the point of view of each of these presumed individual reference frames, the Lorentz force existing between them is reduced to their electrostatic repulsion. Take this another way. If the disk was not spinning in our reference frame, we would expect no magnetic field. How then could there be any agreement as to the magnetic field at any point in space? One observer might observe very different magnetic fields than the other observer. The Butterfly effect of Chaos theory would imply that a small difference in force can lead to very different effects, which in turn would affect each observer differently. It would mean that different observers exist in separate parallel universes, and it would destroy causality. To extend that point further, if this was true, then the person you think you knew yesterday, or even the second before, could be a completely different observer now, and that observer who looked back at you would no longer see you, but some other version of you, placing that observer effectively in some other parallel universe. One observer would be living in one "Matrix" and the other observer in a different "Matrix", and it would be mere coincidence that some well-defined and numerically-limited set of observers, unlike others, share the same "Matrix". Ask yourself, "Is this branching away of universes a phenomenon accessible to science?" This is the kind thing we would have to analyze if we reject causality. One the other hand, what if causality is not destroyed? How could we account for the fact that causality is clearly preserved to some extent? And finally, what if we assume that causality is perfect?

Here is an ultimate constraint of the properties of the universe

If that which is said to produce a certain field at a given point were its own observer, it would observe that the rest of the universe generates that same exact field at that same exact point. For example, if according to one observer, an electron's motions were observed to net a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at a particular point, then according to that electron, the rest of the universe nets a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at that particular point. This implies that the characteristics of the universe must be limited in some way. If you turn on an electric motor, a fundamental charge can only move as expected given the precondition that the electric motor is located in a place that, by rotation of the universe and of its motions about that fundamental charge, the same magnetic fields will be generated. Thus, if the electric motor is operated in a place very far away from any celestial objects, in the large intergalactic voids between galaxies, such that the same field is still produced, one or more of the following would be required:

1) The universe from that point possesses significant asymmetry. 2) The angular velocity of charges in that motor must be greater than expected.

Thus, the possibility for there to be an electric motor in that region of space whose charges possess the same motions that they would when placed elsewhere is contingent on the asymmetry of the universe about that point. If no corresponding asymmetry exists at that point, the electric motor will not both exist there and operate normally. If one observes that certain properties of that electric motor must operate normally under any observed condition it can experience, then the electric motor is forbidden to operate in a place where the asymmetry around it is very low. In many cases, the proposed ultimate constraint would forbid the electric motor from going to the region, whether it is operating or not.

In a very specialized case, there would be situations where the arrangement and motions of matter about a certain point require that a certain object exist there, or otherwise the arrangement of matter and motion is unphysical. If the characteristics of this object were to be implied by the characteristics of the motions of other particles, then one could infer that at some locations, other objects must exist that bear a resemblance to the object. Thus, the existence of a single lifeform in the universe may in fact be dependent on the existence of another lifeform similar to it, and the existence of a star would be dependent on there being other stars similar to it, and ad infinitum.

Awards

Main page: Wikipedia:Good articles

Won: July 13, 2007

Won: July 18, 2007     Raëlian beliefs and practices

Won: July 28, 2007

Won: December 26, 2007

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elimination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Badge received: June 15, 2007 (verification)

Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia

(TIERRS in WIKI) The Importance & Efficiency of Renaming & Rearranging Sections in Wikipedia

Articles whose sections I have rearranged:

• Automation

• Before & After (diff)

• Blacklight Power

• Before & After (diff)
• Before & After (diff)
• Before & After (diff)
• Before & After (diff)

• Cold Fusion

• Before & After (diff)

• Critical Thinking

• Before & After (diff)

• Heat

• Before & After (diff)

• World currency

• Before & After (diff)

• World Population

• Before & After (diff) (Discussion about these changes)

Other methods of improving Wikipedia in an efficient manner

Page renaming

• Hydrino theory -> Blacklight Power (moved + overwhelming support)

• State of article once renamed
• State of article today

Citation bombardment

• Hello Kitty

• (472 bytes - 0 citations) First edit
• (599 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2002
• (1043 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2003
• (5,152 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2004
• (8,268 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2005
• (12,739 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2006
• (18,621 bytes - 0 citations) End of Year 2007
• (9,794 bytes - 4 citations) Before
• (11,710 bytes - 11 citations planted, 4 utilized) Bomb 1
• (13,747 bytes - 6 citations planted, 6 utilized) Bomb 2
• (13,747 bytes - 6 citations) After
• (14,986 bytes - 19 citations) End of Year 2008
• (17,718 bytes - 18 citations) End of Year 2009
• (18,336 bytes - 28 citations) Date this list was generated (October 3, 2010)
• Today

Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)