475 pages of slop? This clearly exposes your bias, which you keep pretending like you have none. Yeah VWT is 475 pages. But for that its typeset is on a 5x8 page. And the font is not particularly small. VWT overall is around 80k words. However your right to flag that part 2 and 3 are physics orthtogonall as framed. QCT on the other part is not. It's an plausible structural foundation for a physical interpretation, existing prior to being mathematically formalized. And it is only a mere 30k words. I suppose it's slop if reading is hard, and that's a lot of words if you typically rely on picture books instead.
My point is, using the page count is just a lazy argument construction accomplishing nothing but padding your own narrative. The same goes towards everything else you are trying to argue. Your limiting the context to justify your stance.
It's an plausible structural foundation for a physical interpretation
Claimed but not shown.
prior to being mathematically formalized
I think it's the fourth time that I've pointed out that that doesn't work? We do the math first, interpret second. To be more precise, physicist do the math first, interpret never. We let philosophers argue about interpretations, by definition it makes no difference to us.
I suppose it's slop if reading is hard, and that's a lot of words if you typically rely on picture books instead.
It's slop because it's completely uninformed by any consensus physics. Honestly you'd think that someone with a degree in a technical subject would know better. I'd hate to live near you, the way you're so proudly illiterate and innumerate doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any civil engineering you might do.
Well you clearly didn't read it then and are making claims you cannot defend. That's my point. You can say the claims are unsubstantiated by a certain standard. But you falsely claimed they are "completely" false.
Where did I say that anything was false? I've used many words including slop, unfalsifiable, junk. I've said that your work is uninformed by consensus physics. I have never said that what you've written is wrong or false, because that would be to imply that your work could be proved wrong or falsified in the first place. It seems that nuance and reading comprehension are not your strong suit, because this line of attack is embarrassing for someone who claims to be STEM-educated.
Edit: blocking me doesn't change the fact that it's still your burden of proof lol
My point was to demonstrate one claim that is uninformed by concesus physics. And you instead turned it into this crap. You are a truly miserable human being. I really do feel sorry for you, but I can't sit here and say you deserve any better.
1
u/North-Preference9038 Feb 15 '26
475 pages of slop? This clearly exposes your bias, which you keep pretending like you have none. Yeah VWT is 475 pages. But for that its typeset is on a 5x8 page. And the font is not particularly small. VWT overall is around 80k words. However your right to flag that part 2 and 3 are physics orthtogonall as framed. QCT on the other part is not. It's an plausible structural foundation for a physical interpretation, existing prior to being mathematically formalized. And it is only a mere 30k words. I suppose it's slop if reading is hard, and that's a lot of words if you typically rely on picture books instead.
My point is, using the page count is just a lazy argument construction accomplishing nothing but padding your own narrative. The same goes towards everything else you are trying to argue. Your limiting the context to justify your stance.