Argument regarding physics

[RCSaunders]

Idiots, both of you idiots...

Well, good of you for straightening us both out. You have no idea how helpful (read, entertaining) you have been. Thanks!

What are you doing here player, replying with your conclusions rather than arguments?
Read and reply, if you think you can player...or simply ignore the thread player, but you haven't addressed the subject below yet...


Back to the subject players, stay on the subject or get lost idiots...



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

I'm trying to politely tell you I find absolutely no sense in anything you have written. I'm not blaming for anything. Attribute it to my own deficiency if you like, but you are wasting your time.

[butimfeeling2022]

I'm trying to politely tell you I find absolutely no sense in anything you have written. I'm not blaming for anything. Attribute it to my own deficiency if you like, but you are wasting your time.

But player... you seem to find some sense in spending time over and over to reply to me, who you are not blaming for anything, but you find absolutely no sense in anything I have written, and yet keep replying without having any arguments in your replies, just your opinion man, as if you couldn't start a thread of your own to write your opinion.

Do you think player it makes sense for you to keep spending time over and over to reply to me regarding absolutely nonsense to you, or are you wasting your and...my time, on my thread, that you didn't start, and you can simply ignore, player? Why?

Cause if you player knew what seems to be happening in reality, and this was something that you imagined, and you had a problem with me writing here that it is something else than anything you can imagine, then why didn't you genius come earlier to tell me not to write it? What? Didn't you know exactly what I would do genius, spending your time to reply to nonsense to you over and over, as if your magic spell didn't work this time?

You think you are funny player, spending your time to reply to absolutely nonsense to you on a thread that you didn't start, or might there be a chance that even you player might understand to not waste your time and effort with nonsense on threads that are not yours player?

[butimfeeling2022]

ack to the subject players, stay on the subject or get lost idiots...



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

[uwot]

Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.

It's not that simple. At any given time there are usually different theories to explain exactly the same phenomenon. There are for instance roughly a dozen theories about what causes gravity that are taken seriously by physicists.

2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

Well again, it is rare that only one candidate theory appears. That will probably always be the case. Science is not an exact science.

[butimfeeling2022]

Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.

It's not that simple. At any given time there are usually different theories to explain exactly the same phenomenon. There are for instance roughly a dozen theories about what causes gravity that are taken seriously by physicists.

2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

Well again, it is rare that only one candidate theory appears. That will probably always be the case. Science is not an exact science.

Did you make an argument there player?

Are you stupid player?

At any given time IDIOT, there is a current theory that is taught to the masses, this is the current theory...

...if a current theory that is taught to the masses doesn't exist, then the masses aren't making common sense of reality, idiot.

also idiot...

A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.

That idiot, doesn't happen once, neither is it implied in the text that it does idiot, but every time it happens, it is "a candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory", not just once idiot.

So now idiot...will you read the whole text, cut the nonsense with me, and think, or are you still gonna waste my time and effort with your opinions without arguments, on a thread that you didn't start, and is nonsense to you idiot?!

[butimfeeling2022]

Back to the subject players, stay on the subject or get lost idiots...



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

[uwot]

Did you make an argument there player?

Are you stupid player?

No, I'm just trying to point out a few things to someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

At any given time IDIOT, there is a current theory that is taught to the masses, this is the current theory...

Even in popular science different theories are presented. If you have not heard of, or failed to understand at least in outline string theory, for example, loop quantum gravity for another, then you are certainly ignorant and probably not very bright.

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

So the result of an experiment might be something, nothing or something else. Congratulations.

isn't it funny?

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

[Sculptor]

Hi all,

Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.

This is a completely empty statement.

This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

There is no logic involved, as such.
How about this.
Any statement that includes all possibilities end up saying nothing at all.

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

Ha ha

[butimfeeling2022]

Did you make an argument there player?

Are you stupid player?

No, I'm just trying to point out a few things to someone who clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

At any given time IDIOT, there is a current theory that is taught to the masses, this is the current theory...

Even in popular science different theories are presented. If you have not heard of, or failed to understand at least in outline string theory, for example, loop quantum gravity for another, then you are certainly ignorant and probably not very bright.

AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

So the result of an experiment might be something, nothing or something else. Congratulations.

isn't it funny?

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

idiot...

the current theory that is widely accepted is one, or else idiot...

...something else than anything anyone imagines seems to be happening...

...and then what do you think the current theory is idiot...

...so do you know understand what I am trying to tell you IDIOT?

[butimfeeling2022]

This is a completely empty statement.

It it idiot, so why did you spend the time and effort to write that idiot?

Any statement that includes all possibilities end up saying nothing at all.

When nothing happens here idiot, it isn't something and it isn't something else that happens here idiot, or else...
...it doesn't seem to me something that doesn't really happen here...
...does it seem to you IDIOT?

[butimfeeling2022]

Back to the subject players, stay on the subject or get lost idiots...



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

[uwot]

idiot...

the current theory that is widely accepted is one, or else idiot...

...something else than anything anyone imagines seems to be happening...

...and then what do you think the current theory is idiot...

...so do you know understand what I am trying to tell you IDIOT?

You don't appear to understand the difference between a theory as a working model, and a theory as a philosophical hypothesis. I'll save myself some time and refer you to articles that address this which I wrote in Philosophy Now, the magazine that pays for the forum you are currently talking nonsense on.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996
If having read those you remain confused, feel free to seek further elucidation.

[butimfeeling2022]

You don't appear to understand the difference between a theory as a working model, and a theory as a philosophical hypothesis.

You don't appear to understand idiot, that a theory is either working in reality as well as we can verify it in reality, or you are imagining stuff IDIOT...but don't worry idiot...
...something else keeps happening around you in reality, or...


before you idiot existed, what do you idiot imagine was really happening in reality...

...something that you idiot imagined after you existed, in order for it to be possible to happen idiot?!

And one step before even you idiot understand what seems to be happening in reality IDIOT, what do you think is REALLY happening, what you imagine idiot, or something else than anything you IDIOT can imagine? Why?

Cause if you IDIOT REALLY KNEW REALITY, and reality was something that you imagined IDIOT, and you IDIOT had a problem with me IDIOT, saying here that it is something else than anything you IDIOT can imagine, but even you IDIOT can imagine how that is in a funny way IDIOT, then why didn't you come earlier to tell me IDIOT?!!!

[butimfeeling2022]

Back to the subject players, stay on the subject or get lost idiots...



Argument
Physics as a science, progresses as follows:
1.There is a current theory, at any given time.
2.A candidate theory, which is more exact regarding what really is happening appears from research as a proposed new theory.
3. Experiments have to be conducted to verify the new theory.
4. When experiments are conducted, they can have the following results. 5. Nothing happens, the experiments fail to show any results, which has happened in the past.
6. Something happens, the experiments had the expected results, which has happened in the past, and science keeps following its path.
7. Something else happens...which was the case with some previous experiments...or else we wouldn't be looking for a new theory, as then all experiments would point only to something, and nothing else...but up to now, this isn't the case, and the future still hap pens next, and not before next happens.
8. What seems to be happening, is that before people actually make things in their lives that do something...they make things that don't do something exactly...and they find that early at best, or late at worst...but the complete story they all know from the beginning, pretty consistently, it seems to me...as it could be the case with the argument I am making here and below.

And all the above in summary is
AXIOM: In any experiment conducted in reality, nothing can happen as a result, some thing can happen as a result, or...something else can happen as a result.
This is an axiom that seems consistent and complete to me, and I dare say...logical. Isn't it?

Well what if it is?
"The consistency of axioms cannot be proven within their own system” (google the phrase)
So, what?.. let's write something below as well...



Systems, axioms and consistency
A system which has axioms for itself, in order for the system to call them axioms for itself, the system has to have a consistent behavior around those axioms and so when it behaves inconsistently with regard to those axioms, the inconsistency between those axioms and the system’s behavior the system can prove to itself.
If what is written above is false, then when a system behaves inconsistently with regard to some axioms it has for itself, that inconsistency it cannot prove to itself, and it keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to those axioms…but…
if the system keeps behaving inconsistently with regard to some axioms and cannot prove to itself that it does so with regard to those axioms, then it doesn’t seem to me it can consistently keep regarding them as axioms for the system, and then something else replaces them, and that something else is what the system calls axioms for itself.



So, what about what mathematicians wrote?


1. When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one doesn’t end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at any time in their history up to now, because if you mathematicians REALLY think otherwise…
When one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, but if you mathematicians think this REALLY makes sense to you…
If in the end mathematicians, when one counts phrases with numbers mathematicians, one can end up with a phrase that makes sense for humans at some time in their history up to now, then it doesn’t seem to me that all humans up to now throughout their history made sense by talking to one another honestly and not only by counting one another with numbers without any regard to honesty ever spoken…does it seem to you mathematicians?

2. When numbers happen before words happen, mathematicians, and the rest ones…
When numbers happen before words happen, words don’t make sense after numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen before words happen, words can make sense after numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now what numbers where counting before, that is worth saying…does it seem to you?

3. When numbers happen after words happen, all…
When numbers happen after words happen, words make sense before numbers happen, or else
When numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, but…
If in the end when numbers happen after words happen, words don’t make sense before numbers happen, then it doesn’t seem to me now that numbers make sense to happen after those specific words…does it seem to you?

So what?...let's summarize...

Mathematicians…
in order to remain alive, you have to keep breathing...and this is an axiom for your system...that you can prove consistently throughout your entire life…
so breathe idiots…breathe…

isn't it funny?

[uwot]

You don't appear to understand idiot, that a theory is either working in reality as well as we can verify it in reality...

The thing is you can have any number of theories to explain any given phenomena. You really should read those articles, they will instantly cure you of a great deal of ignorance.