Chemical Burns

[AlphaNumeric]

Well personally I think I posted a possible solution to Eczema, allergies, and what's up with the Earth.

Then why don't you ring up a pharmaceutical company and give them the cure for allergies and eczema in exchange for a small fee (ie hundreds of millions of dollars)?

If you're not after fame and glory donate the money to charity or give it to them free, as you'll save many many lives, as allergies to peanuts or bees kill plenty of people each year. Go on, put your 'theory of everything' where your big fat mouth is. You claim you've got something which could stop some people from dying, so if you aren't a horrible human being its important you get this information to the right people.

Of course if you're lying you won't even try. But perhaps you're delusional enough to believe your own BS. In which case I'm happy to make a wager with you, though obviously the specifics would have to be worked out. I'll wager $1000 (or 1000 of whatever if your local currency, its actually £ for me) that if you contact a drug company with your supposed insight into a cure for eczema and allergies that they'll say it is utter nonsense. Of course if getting a meeting with a drug company is too difficult (and it can be) I make the same wager about you submitting your 'work' to a reputable medical journal. I'll even help you put it in the right format so its evaluated on its scientific merit, rather than presentation. You and I put the money in the hands of a trusted 3rd party, you submit your 'work' and we wait. You get rejected, I get the money. You get published, you get the money.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

And another mistake! Acid does not, in general, work by generating heat on the atomic or cellular level, it is a chemical reaction which destroys the chemicals which make up the cells in your skin. Chemical burns are not heat burns, they are quite different.

Let's see if I can put this in a way which you can grasp. Its like demolishing a house. You can either blow it up or tear down each wall one at a time. Heating something to extreme temperatures would do to the cells what blowing up a house would. Dipping them in acid eats away at them till they are destroyed, like ripping down te walls of a house, then the inner walls, till the house is gone.

I was explaining how the cells are ripped apart by electro conduction. Like a blown fuse. The current is altered to a speed, or direction which the cells cannot cope with.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Then why don't you ring up a pharmaceutical company and give them the cure for allergies and eczema in exchange for a small fee (ie hundreds of millions of dollars)?

If you're not after fame and glory donate the money to charity or give it to them free, as you'll save many many lives, as allergies to peanuts or bees kill plenty of people each year. Go on, put your 'theory of everything' where your big fat mouth is. You claim you've got something which could stop some people from dying, so if you aren't a horrible human being its important you get this information to the right people.

Of course if you're lying you won't even try. But perhaps you're delusional enough to believe your own BS. In which case I'm happy to make a wager with you, though obviously the specifics would have to be worked out. I'll wager $1000 (or 1000 of whatever if your local currency, its actually £ for me) that if you contact a drug company with your supposed insight into a cure for eczema and allergies that they'll say it is utter nonsense. Of course if getting a meeting with a drug company is too difficult (and it can be) I make the same wager about you submitting your 'work' to a reputable medical journal. I'll even help you put it in the right format so its evaluated on its scientific merit, rather than presentation. You and I put the money in the hands of a trusted 3rd party, you submit your 'work' and we wait. You get rejected, I get the money. You get published, you get the money.

I know from the results in this thread how far I would get.

 

[Read-Only]

I know from the results in this thread how far I would get.

Good - for the very first time ever, you have just shown a faint glimmer of actual intelligence!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I know from the results in this thread how far I would get.

But if you have the cure which could save a great many lives surely its your moral imperative to try? If you have a theory of everything backed up by scientific data journals can't deny you.

If you think you're right, you have no excuse. So how about that wager?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

But if you have the cure which could save a great many lives surely its your moral imperative to try? If you have a theory of everything backed up by scientific data journals can't deny you.

If you think you're right, you have no excuse. So how about that wager?

I lose through stupidity, that's not a proper result.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You lose through lack of evidence, lack of results, lack of justification, lack of understanding, lack of knowledge and lack of rationality. Yet another thing you are demonstrated to be making false claims about.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You lose through lack of evidence, lack of results, lack of justification, lack of understanding, lack of knowledge and lack of rationality. Yet another thing you are demonstrated to be making false claims about.

I'll tell you of a similar story. Last year I posted about a bubble of dark matter around the Galaxy. I even explained how it got there, and how it created the Galaxy. I got the same response as this thread. Now scientists have discovered the bubble of Dark Matter around the Galaxy. But it got me nowhere.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Last year I posted about a bubble of dark matter around the Galaxy.

So you made a claim which had already been made by scientists who actually have working models of gravity and matter and then claimed it was explained by your theory?

I even explained how it got there, and how it created the Galaxy

Posting a few lines of arm waving waffle isn't 'explaining'. You didn't provide a working model of dark matter, its interaction with normal matter, its dynamics, its gravitational profile and the its distribution through the galaxy. That's what scientists did, they worked out precisely how dark matter would interact with normal matter, the gravitational and optical signatures to look for, designed the detectors to find such signatures, built them, used them, did statistical analysis on petabytes of data, compared with models, narrowed down parameter spaces and produced a set of results with appropriate confidence bounds and error bars. You just said "There'll be some dark matter out there" when you can't even pin down what dark matter is.

Now scientists have discovered the bubble of Dark Matter around the Galaxy. But it got me nowhere.

They knew about it before you started posting here. And, as I just explained, you provided no model, no predictions from justified workings, nothing which can be tested and excluded by observation, nothing of any work other than piggy backing on an idea (dark matter) someone else had and which you read about. Now if you can provide a derivation of the existence of matter which only interacts with ours via weak and gravitational interactions from some fundamental theory, which is developed from a set of clearly stated postulates via rigorous logic and which makes quantitative clear statements, as is done using the minimally supersymmetry standard model by actual physicists where the stability of dark matter descends from R symmetry in the fermionic generators, then I'd accept there's something to your claim but you have done nothing other than claim something without any substance to it.

I've got a theory of everything too and it says you're wrong. Do you believe me? Or do you think I should actually back up what I say? If you think I should back up what I say then you should realise your hypocrisy.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

So you made a claim which had already been made by scientists who actually have working models of gravity and matter and then claimed it was explained by your theory?

Posting a few lines of arm waving waffle isn't 'explaining'. You didn't provide a working model of dark matter, its interaction with normal matter, its dynamics, its gravitational profile and the its distribution through the galaxy. That's what scientists did, they worked out precisely how dark matter would interact with normal matter, the gravitational and optical signatures to look for, designed the detectors to find such signatures, built them, used them, did statistical analysis on petabytes of data, compared with models, narrowed down parameter spaces and produced a set of results with appropriate confidence bounds and error bars. You just said "There'll be some dark matter out there" when you can't even pin down what dark matter is.

They knew about it before you started posting here. And, as I just explained, you provided no model, no predictions from justified workings, nothing which can be tested and excluded by observation, nothing of any work other than piggy backing on an idea (dark matter) someone else had and which you read about. Now if you can provide a derivation of the existence of matter which only interacts with ours via weak and gravitational interactions from some fundamental theory, which is developed from a set of clearly stated postulates via rigorous logic and which makes quantitative clear statements, as is done using the minimally supersymmetry standard model by actual physicists where the stability of dark matter descends from R symmetry in the fermionic generators, then I'd accept there's something to your claim but you have done nothing other than claim something without any substance to it.

I've got a theory of everything too and it says you're wrong. Do you believe me? Or do you think I should actually back up what I say? If you think I should back up what I say then you should realise your hypocrisy.

I'm talking about the sphere here, not just random patterns. I explained how it got there from the compression of plank material. If it was known, then why did nobody say so at the time? I was just insulted, nobody said we already know that.

This...

 

[Trippy]

I'm talking about the sphere here, not just random patterns. I explained how it got there from the compression of plank material. If it was known, then why did nobody say so at the time? I was just insulted, nobody said we already know that.

This...

You signed up in March 2009.

Here's a page/article from 2000 discussing results from Chandra and spherical dark matter haloes.
http://chandra.as.utexas.edu/~kormendy/dm-halo-pic.html

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Well I'm saying that Saturn's rings are dark matter halos, Ok so if you've heard it before post it. I'm also saying that there is a black hole in the Earth, and a Black Hole in the sun.... post it. And I'm saying that the Ozone Layer is a dark membrane.. post it.

 

[Trippy]

Anisotropy of ultra high energy cosmic rays in the dark matter halo model 1999
Dark matter halo cores in hierarchical clustering theories 1999
First Clear Signature of an Extended Dark Matter Halo in the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal 2001

I've also seen references to a paper from 1988 that from the context it's cited in appears to relate to the formation of dark matter haloes. Scaling of Tidal Fields. Aarseth et al. (1988) but have been unable to track down an online copy.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Anisotropy of ultra high energy cosmic rays in the dark matter halo model 1999
Dark matter halo cores in hierarchical clustering theories 1999
First Clear Signature of an Extended Dark Matter Halo in the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal 2001

I've also seen references to a paper from 1988 that from the context it's cited in appears to relate to the formation of dark matter haloes. Scaling of Tidal Fields. Aarseth et al. (1988) but have been unable to track down an online copy.

Anyway, you're talking about halos, not the sphere that surrounds the Galaxy that was reported last week.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Wow...we went from chemical burns to woo in 8.54 seconds.

I actually went through a chemical hazard course today at work. Apparently, if we all take these safety courses, the company gets a break on the insurance.

Ever wonder what those signs on chemical barrels mean?

The red square indicates how flammable the substance is, with a rating of 0-4. 0 is not flammable, 4 is very flammable. The blue square indicates health hazards. If the substance is dangerous to breath in, or contact the skin...or the shit gives you cancer..it's rated 0-4. The yellow indicates how reactive the substance is, like a strong oxidizer. Basically if you mix this shit with other shit..something bad might happen. Rated 0-4. The white tells you what type of equipment you have to wear when using the substance.

Just something new I learned today. Yeah for learning!

 

[Trippy]

Well I'm saying... ...a Black Hole in the sun.... post it.

Sure thing Pincho.
An Account of the Development of the Solar Neutrino Problem

This essay was written in 1982, and as part of the discussion cites a 1975 paper (Clayton, Newman, and Talbot 1975) that suggests the existence of a black hole in the solar core - the idea being that a sufficiently small black hole acreeting in the solar core would provide an explanation for the mising neutrinos by providing an additional energy flux, and reducing the energy fl;ux, and therefore neutrino flux from fusion.

 

[Trippy]

Anyway, you're talking about halos, not the sphere that surrounds the Galaxy that was reported last week.

BS.
What shape do you think the Halo was?
Not to mention that your statement is directly contradicted by at least two of the links I provided.

For example, I quote from Dark matter halo cores in hierarchical clustering theories

Although scaling laws suggest possible forms for the core density, and velocity dispersion
profiles, dynamical constraints may not always allow these forms to obtain. To explore
this dynamical issue further, we have looked [6] at a simple tractable model: the spherical,
self similar collapse, of dark matter density perturbations, in a flat universe.

Explicitly discussing a spherical dark matter halo.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

BS.
What shape do you think the Halo was?
Not to mention that your statement is directly contradicted by at least two of the links I provided.

For example, I quote from Dark matter halo cores in hierarchical clustering theories



Explicitly discussing a spherical dark matter halo.

Oh you call a sphere a halo.. OK. I call a Halo a ring. Ok so I have Dark Matter rings, sphere, and holes. But the thing is that I have gravity as a push, so no matter what scientists come up with, they are doing it a different way to my way, so in the end, only a halo formed from a gravity push will match my description. So all of those old posts will not count in eliminating my theory as the first version with both a push of gravity, and all of the phenomena associated with that explanation. And I'm not sure why all of a sudden I am competing with science.. if my theory is so far fetched?