Why nobody could find the Aether....
Black Holes are in the theory of everything.
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Yes, its my fault you're just throwing around words you have no clue as to the meaning of.
The problem is I know the proper context in which those words are used and I know the kind of background of details they entail. Hence why your use of them is so incorrect.
Yes, it's just faith that all the technology we have exists. It's faith that you're currently sitting in front of, using faith to make pictures and communicate across the globe. No, its a computer. Science isn't about faith, its about producing testable results and experimental justification. To say its faith is to be completely ignorant of what science is. Which is why its all the more pathetic if you believe the shit you're posting because you really have absolutely no clue of how science is actually done. For all your talk of being an ideas man you can't even grasp what makes science science.
No, you use 'my words' to try and kid yourself that what you're doing isn't wasted time. Simply using particular words doesn't mean you're doing science. Saying 'The Bose-Einstein Black Hole condensate' doesn't mean you know about black holes or condensates or the work of Bose and Einstein. Every time you use them you demonstrate you're trying to deceive people, because you're going for style over substance. You aren't doing science, you are trying to give the impression you are. The problem is you know so little that your feeble pictures scream "Look at me, I'm a fraud!". Pictures with nothing behind them is the calling card of a hack. Just look at threads by QWC or Farsight or Zephir or Vern. Many are people who claim they are definitely right and they just need someone to fill in the mathematics. All just post pictures and wave their arms.
None of them have accomplished anything and neither will you.
Yes, be happy with your one paper, and think back to the day you missed your opportunity by being given the Theory Of Everything on a plate, and not being able to understand it. To be honest, I don't see the point in posting insults, that must be the most unproductive thing anybody could ever spend their time doing??? Also in your post you have proved that you don't understand the Bose-Einstein Condensate.. which is crazy.
Last edited:
Einstein forgot about the Aether when he decided on his Theory Of Relativity. The Aether is a flow through the magnet, and therefore the magnet is going to
disturb the material more than the conductor...
In fact Einstein got rid of the Aether in this theory that actually shows that it is there!!!
disturb the material more than the conductor...
In fact Einstein got rid of the Aether in this theory that actually shows that it is there!!!
Last edited:
Einstein forgot about the Aether when he decided on his Theory Of Relativity. The Aether is a flow through the magnet, and therefore the magnet is going to
disturb the material more than the conductor...
You are claiming the magnet is moving relative to the Aether?
I'm claiming that experiments with Relativity involved usually find the Aether, and somehow get called Relativity. The two planes around the Earth with clocks also finds the Aether. The two slit experiment finds the Aether. Oh yeah, sorry, and I'm saying that the magnet is moving the Aether to make it flow faster.
Last edited:
Three. And that's three more than you'll ever get published.
You are probably the tenth person to say that to me. Each and every one of them has failed to accomplish anything. Some just stop posting, others spend their own money to self publish books after journals reject them, but none of them have ever even got a single bit of their work published.
I've challenged you repeatedly to put your money where your mouth is, to put $1000 on the table and to submit your work to a journal. If you're so damn sure you're right its free money to you. The fact you haven't taken me up on it speaks volumes.
Its more productive than the time you're spending making your worthless pictures. I spend less than an hour a day typing this posts, which is a great deal less than I spend working, which is reading papers and books and doing physics.
So because I don't believe your claims about a BEC, something you know nothing about and have no evidence exists in neurons, I don't know about the scientific work done on BECs? The problem being that the thermal distribution of the atoms/molecules in neurons does not meet the requirements of a BEC, in that they aren't all in the same quantum ground state.
Yet another falsification of your claims.
I spend time making pictures, because you guys, and even Einstein couldn't see that at the time when Aether was part of science, Einstein couldn't figure out how the Aether was not relative to two bodies. Well you only have to look at the disturbance of a magnet to realise that it is not an equal test of motion. The magnet being way more dynamic that a piece of wire, and the magnet using an invisible substance alludes to the magnet causing the most mayhem.
Soon I will show you how the Condensate works.. in pictures, being as I have explained it, and you are still lost with it.
Why do you even bother quoting me when you reply to nothing I say?
I did...
The rest of your stuff was to do with that Chemistry argument. I'm not trying to get anywhere in Chemistry. I have a theory of everything which includes Chemistry, but I can't study everything in my lifetime. In the computer games industry you have a programmer, and a Graphic Designer, and I am usually the Graphic Designer. In science you should have the theorist, and the mathematician, and I am the theorist. Science is trying to get everyone to work from the same Bible, and I'm not having it.
You want me to come up with an experiment, and I probably can come up with a few, but no way to do them here.
The rest of your stuff was to do with that Chemistry argument. I'm not trying to get anywhere in Chemistry. I have a theory of everything which includes Chemistry, but I can't study everything in my lifetime. In the computer games industry you have a programmer, and a Graphic Designer, and I am usually the Graphic Designer. In science you should have the theorist, and the mathematician, and I am the theorist. Science is trying to get everyone to work from the same Bible, and I'm not having it.
You want me to come up with an experiment, and I probably can come up with a few, but no way to do them here.
Last edited:
I've done it! I have the formula as a bunch of pi explanations but I don't know what to do...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2485506#post2485506
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2485506#post2485506
This is simply not true. It is something you tell yourself in order to convince yourself you're doing science, that its not important you are functionally innumerate. You are basing this claim on nothing.
I did maths as an undergrad and physics as a postgrad. I know people who did chemistry, biology, physics, geology and all the different subdisciplines. ALL of them have a high level of mathematical ability, all of them. Sure, they aren't doing mathematics like a mathematician does but all of them are able to do plenty of calculus. Hell, at Cambridge there's a huge overlap in the maths and physics courses. I work with people in my postgrad now who did different degrees to me but it turns out we were in the same lectures a lot of the time. You can't understand the work if you can't understand the details. You can't understand the details if you aren't able to do basic mathematics. Hell, I know chemistry students who had to learn group theory and quantum mechanics because quantum chemistry was part of their course.
Every single physics degree in the world requires mathematics. In the UK you'll need a maths A Level, perhaps even further maths. You'll then have a number of compulsory mathematics courses throughout your degree. How do I know? I work in such a university!
You have no knowledge of physics and yet you're trying to tell me, a physicist, how it works. You're deluded for believing you can do that and you're an idiot for trying.
No, science is getting people to make predictions and test them in order to understand reality more. You aren't interested in reality, you aren't interested in whether your ideas actually have anything to do with the real world, you just want to make up shit and have people complement you.
I have maths A level, I have worked in CAD, and CNC, but then I worked on Computer games, and I have a selective memory, and forgot it all. I am just beginning to remember it it now. But all I ever did was cut metal with it, and draw plans. I never got to the stage where I could build a 3D model like the Kissing Problem, and find spaces. The only spaces I ever had to work on were the spaces around sheet metal to see how many cuts you could make in it. I was quite good at maths once... well not good, but Ok for factory work.
Well, what do you know of singularities, people? Are they dangerous if there was one on a finite distance?
Do you remember my image of the Galaxy bubble, and how it creates a Galaxy. Look...
Black hole caught zapping galaxy into existence?
Black hole caught zapping galaxy into existence?
I'm not saying this to dig at you but a Factory environment for the most part is not Core Mathematics. It's usually plan's on the backs of cigarette patterns, Guesstimations and approximations and a few infractions in regards to health and safety. Not exactly a training camp for recruits to beat MENSA challenges.
Usually I think it goes alone the lines:
"Why's Stan been so long on his break?"
"He nicked Bob's Porn Mag..."
"Oh! that figures, he'll be a while, should we weld his toolbox to his workbench?"
"We could do, but if we stack all these boxes in a unsafe, unsupported but very high manner we can weld it to the ceiling instead."
"Okay lets do that!"
"The jobs a good'en. :bravo:"
In regards to Mathematics, you say you have the basic fundementals in regards to Mathematics. Now you can either leave it at that and just deal with what the world throws at you and not try to voyage into territories that other people eat up like numeric speghetti, or you can attempt to rekindle those dusty braincells with some serious Numeracy swatting and try to get to the level you wish you were at. (The older you are the more painful thats going to be) Your choice, but your best being honest with who/what you are, people can't catch you out on a lie if you are what you are.
No, you don't.
None of which equips you to work in research level physics.
But you never learnt much in the 1st place. I did double maths A Level and then went on to do maths at university. To make sure everyone was on a level playing field in my first year the lecturer went through the A Level maths course. In 4 hours. Covered everything. Then carried on at that pace and that was 8 years ago. The amount of maths you know is tiny compared to anyone who actually studied it.
aka shit. My father did a degree and PhD in mathematics and has spent 30 years in research. Got more letters after his name than you'd get by dropping a tin of alphabetti spaghetti on your CV. Written more than 300 papers, several books on 3 dimensional modelling, edited a journal, worked at places like Princeton and on first name terms with top people at companies like BAE or Boeing and he doesn't understand a single thing in my work. Not because I'm smarter (I'm not) but because nothing in his work gives him any experience with the right kind of physics.
So if a professor with a lifetime of expertise in computational modelling can't do it I'm damn sure you can't. Do you really think you being a computer programmer is of any help? That no one in science has ever done such stuff? You're staggeringly naive. I know people who write code for supercomputers. The big kind, the kind the military are willing to build to model nuclear explosions or the F22 with budgets into the hundreds of millions and enough computing power to choke a wide necked animal. Things like this. None of your skills are impressive, anyone in the aeronautics industry will know more maths, have better programming skills and be a damn sight better read than you. You have nothing unique or impressive when compared to people already working in these things.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, but Science can't wait for me to do that. Can you imagine what I could do for science even if I have to explain everything in words? All I need is an open minded Genius to listen to me for a couple of weeks until he gets it. I'm not saying that a Genius is stupid, I'm saying that to turn around science is hard for a Genius to handle. But after a couple of weeks they will get used to the ideas that I present, and then they can figure out how to do the experiments.
Yes, we all know what you can do. But you can't break from the faith. You need to be open minded. Or just figure out what I am saying without altering things.