I don't think Facebook quizzes count.
Could CuttleFish Ink Be Used As A Sourse Of Radium (Radioactive)?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
I don't think Facebook quizzes count.
But a theory of everything that turns out right does. So wait.
Model, something which models something. A model of gravity would tell me how high a ball thrown at 1km/s would reach before falling back to Earth. It would tell me the time it takes to fall back to Earth. It would allow me to plot the motion of the Moon and the Earth or a satellite launched into space on a rocket.
A 'model' provides an accurate working description of a phenomenon which can be tested. You have provided nothing of the sort. You have no 'theory of everything' as you cannot model anything.
So? Mensa doesn't test your knowledge. Plenty of people in Mensa are still ignorant. And if you want to play that game I once got in the top 65 mathematicians for my age in the entire UK. There's about 750,000 people in each school year in the UK so that puts me in the top 1 per 10,000. So I could perfectly legitimately claim I'm in the top 0.01% for mathematics. Does that mean I'm instantly right in everything I say? Because if you think that you're worth listening to for your top 1% then you should think I'm even more worth listening to as I'm in the top 1% of the top 1%. And the rest of the top 1% of the 1%? I'd wager most of them are still in academia too, still doing mathematics and physics, all of which says you're wrong.
Argument to authority fails as a line of reasoning, particularly for you since there's plenty of better people who don't agree with you.
You are the one which doesn't know any physics. If you want to go down the road of top 1% etc again I'll trot out my academic credentials. You failed to be in the top 1% of physicists in school and now you believe you're in it?! Having done no maths or physics or reading since then? Obviously logical reasoning isn't a strong point of yours.
So any sufficiently elaborate story is automatically true because getting consistency in a vague idea is hard? So you think The Lord of the Rings is true? After all, it contains several entirely consistent languages and a consistent history of the universe. How could anyone possible make up several languages and a consistent story over thousands of pages, right?
And you believe all TV shows you watch are real, because they are all consistent with themselves and span large amounts of material. You make up vague bullshit and then some more vague bullshit. Because its vague you can twist it after the fact. If you provided a model, as I keep asking, you'd have to pin down your predictions and then when falsified you couldn't argue. That is why all cranks avoid providing details, it means they can continue twisting their claims and delude themselves.
A ToE which has already been falsified by chemistry and atomic theory. It is wrong.
Megan is great until she opens her mouth.
Then she's awesome
(assuming she hasnt opened her mouth to speak
)Model, something which models something. A model of gravity would tell me how high a ball thrown at 1km/s would reach before falling back to Earth. It would tell me the time it takes to fall back to Earth. It would allow me to plot the motion of the Moon and the Earth or a satellite launched into space on a rocket.
A 'model' provides an accurate working description of a phenomenon which can be tested. You have provided nothing of the sort. You have no 'theory of everything' as you cannot model anything.
So? Mensa doesn't test your knowledge. Plenty of people in Mensa are still ignorant. And if you want to play that game I once got in the top 65 mathematicians for my age in the entire UK. There's about 750,000 people in each school year in the UK so that puts me in the top 1 per 10,000. So I could perfectly legitimately claim I'm in the top 0.01% for mathematics. Does that mean I'm instantly right in everything I say? Because if you think that you're worth listening to for your top 1% then you should think I'm even more worth listening to as I'm in the top 1% of the top 1%. And the rest of the top 1% of the 1%? I'd wager most of them are still in academia too, still doing mathematics and physics, all of which says you're wrong.
Argument to authority fails as a line of reasoning, particularly for you since there's plenty of better people who don't agree with you.
You are the one which doesn't know any physics. If you want to go down the road of top 1% etc again I'll trot out my academic credentials. You failed to be in the top 1% of physicists in school and now you believe you're in it?! Having done no maths or physics or reading since then? Obviously logical reasoning isn't a strong point of yours.
So any sufficiently elaborate story is automatically true because getting consistency in a vague idea is hard? So you think The Lord of the Rings is true? After all, it contains several entirely consistent languages and a consistent history of the universe. How could anyone possible make up several languages and a consistent story over thousands of pages, right?
You make up vague bullshit and then some more vague bullshit. Because its vague you can twist it after the fact. If you provided a model, as I keep asking, you'd have to pin down your predictions and then when falsified you couldn't argue. That is why all cranks avoid providing details, it means they can continue twisting their claims and delude themselves.
A ToE which has already been falsified by chemistry and atomic theory. It is wrong.
You say that you are 1%, but you come out with crazy analogies like LOTR. If you are clever you would realise that I include all of the scientific experiments in my theory, and tell you how they work. I tie them all into my theory, and then use them in another part of my theory. For example the push gravity that I use correctly predicts that the Universe will be even on all sides because the push gravity would put pressure on all sides of the Universe. My push Gravity allows Saturn's rings to be Black Rings because they contain the invisible Aether, which would act like a liquid to sustain the ring shape.
You just come out with rubbish like LOTR, and think that it compares to a theory that works with everything in nature. You need to come up with something better. You need to come up with something that forms naturally, like the kissing problem forms photons by breaking the planck material through even pressure. You need to explain why the kissing problem would start the Universe off, and how the kissing problem forms a fractal that matches the fractal of the Universe. You need to look at the spacing of Galaxies, and say if that spacing matches the kissing problem fractal. You need to say how an implosion caused by the kissing problem, Aether, a push gravity, and pressure create Nucleus, protons, atoms, and how it scales up into a Galaxy, nebula, black holes, dark matter, and the Universe expansion, and the universe equal pressure. You can't add anything that cannot happen naturally, like a fairy. The kissing problem is natural, and only contains sphere. You need something similar, that can form naturally. Then you have to have that working with QR, and not have anything spooky happening, and you can't add any hidden dimensions, because that isn't natural.
I have done all of those things, and if it's a lie, then its an amazing lie. It even explains sentience, with the squeezing of atoms to increase flow of Aether, break the kissing problem, aim the flow, and use a black hole to conclude the thought. How many theories include sentience? I don't cheat, I do the same thing for magnetism, and for the two slit experiment, and spooky action at a distance.
Last edited:
1) The kissing problem Newton and the kissing problem created the Universe.
2) It created the universe because it happens naturally with any same sized sphere. Therefore the Universe is made from tiny sphere.
3) The centre sphere is under pressure, but pressure is a force of push, not pull. The current theory that Gravity is a pull, does not create a Universe. If you start with a theory where gravity is pressure from all sides, then Gravity is a push.
4) Then the push is a grain of sphere, and so a grain of sphere is Gravity.
5) The Universe then started from a tiny grain which has been known as the Aether, or a particle so small that it creates all other particles.
6) The particles are created by pressure due to the kissing problem, and the kissing problem of grain creates a fractal that is icosahedral (which I called The Hexagonal Universe)
7) When a particle so small breaks, it has no other parts to break into, so it disappears, creates a Black Hole, and releases a wave, which is light.
8) The wave spreads outwards through the icosahedral building blocks, causing new pressure, breaking more grain. The outward spread is uneven, and star shaped. The star shaped pressure wave leaves spaces for more grain to flow in through. The inward flow, and outward force creates an even pressure which is what you need for a membrane.
9) The membrane has a hole in the centre of it, which has material flowing into it, and colliding at a single point. The material is now a chain reaction of flow, and break, an create wave, which is a flow of energy, or a pulse. This is now a nucleus.
10) The nucleus itself is locked by pressure like a tiny igloo, and can hold its shape, and more nucleus are forming around it.
11) Now the nucleus form into a new kissing problem at a larger scale.
12) Repeat the whole thing again with the nucleus, but this time scaling up the energy released, scaling up the membrane created, and you have the protons.
This process can be repeated until the pressure on an igloo by itself does not cause the construction to break. Instead, the material flows around the membrane. Now you have an igloo with channels around it.
The channels are winding, and so a particle moving through the channels has to wind around the igloos. This is the wave particle duality. Where a particle is in a winding stream.
I could explain all the way through to sentience itself. About the only thing I haven't figured out that will give me a big problem is DNA.
2) It created the universe because it happens naturally with any same sized sphere. Therefore the Universe is made from tiny sphere.
3) The centre sphere is under pressure, but pressure is a force of push, not pull. The current theory that Gravity is a pull, does not create a Universe. If you start with a theory where gravity is pressure from all sides, then Gravity is a push.
4) Then the push is a grain of sphere, and so a grain of sphere is Gravity.
5) The Universe then started from a tiny grain which has been known as the Aether, or a particle so small that it creates all other particles.
6) The particles are created by pressure due to the kissing problem, and the kissing problem of grain creates a fractal that is icosahedral (which I called The Hexagonal Universe)
7) When a particle so small breaks, it has no other parts to break into, so it disappears, creates a Black Hole, and releases a wave, which is light.
8) The wave spreads outwards through the icosahedral building blocks, causing new pressure, breaking more grain. The outward spread is uneven, and star shaped. The star shaped pressure wave leaves spaces for more grain to flow in through. The inward flow, and outward force creates an even pressure which is what you need for a membrane.
9) The membrane has a hole in the centre of it, which has material flowing into it, and colliding at a single point. The material is now a chain reaction of flow, and break, an create wave, which is a flow of energy, or a pulse. This is now a nucleus.
10) The nucleus itself is locked by pressure like a tiny igloo, and can hold its shape, and more nucleus are forming around it.
11) Now the nucleus form into a new kissing problem at a larger scale.
12) Repeat the whole thing again with the nucleus, but this time scaling up the energy released, scaling up the membrane created, and you have the protons.
This process can be repeated until the pressure on an igloo by itself does not cause the construction to break. Instead, the material flows around the membrane. Now you have an igloo with channels around it.
The channels are winding, and so a particle moving through the channels has to wind around the igloos. This is the wave particle duality. Where a particle is in a winding stream.
I could explain all the way through to sentience itself. About the only thing I haven't figured out that will give me a big problem is DNA.
Last edited:
Yes and unlike you I have evidence which is more than taking an internet test.
Well done on failing to grasp my point. Yes, LOTR is obviously crazy but I'm only employing your logic. If something is voluminous and yet consistent it doesn't make it true.
A claim contradicted by evidence; your claims about phenomena and your ignorant of 99.999999% of experiments done in science. You are making a demonstrably false claim. In this thread you claimed squeezing Radium makes it glow. That is demonstrably false. So you're wrong. So your theory cannot possibly be consistent with all scientific experiments. QED.
Another demonstrably false claim. The fact we can see the rings of Saturn means they cannot be black rings. By definition black rings do not reflect light, which the rings of Saturn do. Further more you have not provided a working model of gravity. Can you compute the orbital resonance of certain moons of Saturn and Jupiter? Can you provide me with the precession of Mercury's orbit? No. Then you have no model of gravity. You have a one line explaination which is no more justified than "Gravity is invisible fairies pushing things around".
You have yet again been contradicted by evidence.
Other than chemistry, atomic physics, nuclear physics and gravity. In fact, every area you have made a claim about you've been mistaken about. Again, this is a demonstrable fact.
I have repeated asked you and you have never responded to the question of "What is your definition of 'Planck material'?". This is not standard science terminology and whenever you invent new terms you should clearly define them. You also make the mistake of believing that macroscopic phenomena like 'pressure' have any meaning on the subatomic level. This is yet another demonstrably false claim. So now we're up to chemistry, atomic physics, nuclear physics, gravity and sub-nuclear physics.
See, you don't understand the specifics of the Kissing problem or fractals and so you assume that no one else does. Hence you use them with abandon and think you'll convince people you grasp something they don't. The problem is that some of us do know enough mathematics to grasp such things and see through you. Please explain how the Kissing problem leads to fractals or I'll have to add basic geometry to the list of things you don't understand.
So you have done a statistical analysis of galaxy distributions within the universe? You must have access to some pretty high level astronomy data because I know people who do precisely that kind of thing as part of their research and they have to wait for time on telescopes over in Hawaii or South America. So please provide your statistical analysis of galaxy distributions and the raw data you used or else it'll appear as if you're simply lying. Again.
The Kissing problem is a mathematical construct, the question of how to most efficiently pack sets of $$S^{n}$$ in $$\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$$. You can't cause a mathematically abstract question via a physical process like 'an implosion'. You have just demonstrated you don't grasp the basic philosophy of mathematics and its relationship to physics. Or the Kissing problem.
But you've added aether without providing any evidence for its existence. If you can add aether, I can add invisible fairies who push things about. And as everyone knows the strength of their pushing is related to the ratio of their wing area to shoe size. It explains how atoms form and also the origin of relgion! Don't you see, its a perfect theory of everything!
So extra dimensions aren't natural but aether is? Please define your criteria for 'natural' because it seems like you're just making it up as you please. Given you have no experience with science how can you possibly know what is 'natural' or not, other than simply claiming it is?
Its only amazing to those who believe its anything more than random nonsense made by twisting things other people have said.
Provide me one model which allows me to actually model sentience. If you can go from atoms to thoughts then you can provide me with a working model of atoms from which I can construct a model of human thought patterns in the brain with ease. If you can't do that then the answer to your question is zero. Unless of course you include my invisible fairy theory (the fairies are orange by the way), where our sentience is caused by them sprinkling their fairy dust over the atoms in brain and it resulting in sentience. See, it's a perfect explaination!
A particle of mass m and charge q moves through a magnetic field B with velocity v. Use your theory to tell me the force on the particle due to the magnetic field and to calculate its trajectory if it is at $$x[/b] at time t'. If you can't an answer this than you are demonstrably lying about your claim to have explained magnetism and your theory of 'everything' is shown to contain yet another caveat.$$
$$
Good, use your maths skills on the real universe instead of the one you currently have then, and fix the ridiculous QP.$$
Arrogance and ignorance rock!
You utterly failed to respond to anything I said. You couldn't provide a jot of evidence for your claims, you couldn't answer my direct questions, you couldn't back up anything you said. You have proven all I say about you is on the mark.
Remember, I'm willing to put $1000 or £1000 or 1000 whatever on the fact you will not get published if you submitted the nonsense like this post to a reputable journal. You haven't 'explaned' anything, you've done nothing more than replace "God did it" with buzzwords. You don't have any working models of anything. You keep talking about light and gravity but if I ask you to tell me how much energy a photon of momentum p has you can't tell me or you can't tell me the force between two objects of mass M1 and M2 a distance R apart due to gravity. You can't tell me anything which responds to any kind of scientific question and thus, by definition, you are not doing science. You have no answers to any questions anyone who knows any science asks you. To claim you have a scientifically viable theory of everything is to tell a lie, a clear and undeniable lie.
Remember, I'm willing to put $1000 or £1000 or 1000 whatever on the fact you will not get published if you submitted the nonsense like this post to a reputable journal. You haven't 'explaned' anything, you've done nothing more than replace "God did it" with buzzwords. You don't have any working models of anything. You keep talking about light and gravity but if I ask you to tell me how much energy a photon of momentum p has you can't tell me or you can't tell me the force between two objects of mass M1 and M2 a distance R apart due to gravity. You can't tell me anything which responds to any kind of scientific question and thus, by definition, you are not doing science. You have no answers to any questions anyone who knows any science asks you. To claim you have a scientifically viable theory of everything is to tell a lie, a clear and undeniable lie.
Those are maths questions, science is truth, not necessarily maths. I think in images, somebody who thinks in maths can convert my images for me. At school I was so far ahead in maths that I was allowed to read comics whilst everyone else caught up. Somehow this replaced my maths abilities with 3D spacial abilities. Now I'm useless at maths, although I can pass A level, and can follow calculus. But I find that when I am working on Calculus my mind would rather be working on images instead, and I feel that I could be solving something like DNA instead of wasting my time.
No, they are science. If I want to put a man on the Moon I need to know how much fuel I'll need to do it, so I know how big a rocket to build. They don't build the Shuttle the size it is because they like expensive fuel bills, they do it because it needs that much fuel to get into space.
If you can't tell me up gravity due to the Earth affects something, like the Shuttle, then you are unable to do science, you are not able to tell me how the universe behaves. You aren't doing any experiments and you aren't providing any models. You aren't doing any science. To claim "That isn't science" is wrong. Look at the work published on ArXiv. It holds pretty much the entirity of mathematics and physics research done in the last decade. To claim that you aren't doing science if you provide quantitative answers is flat out bullshit. You claim to do science but you don't even know what it is!
And you still don't answer my questions. Can't you tell me how you know the galaxy distrtibution is fractal? Have you realised you've simply made up a claim you have absolutely no evidence for in an area you have no experience of? The fact you're avoiding such questions illustrates you know you can't answer them, you know you have lied. You are being deliberately dishonest and you damn well know it. To continue to make claims when everyone calls and proves you a liar is not just silly, its idiotic.
But then that pretty much sums you up. An idiotic failure with delusions of grandeur.
Everybody knows that the Universe is a fractal. Look at a tree, look at a leaf, look at a galaxy, look at the next galaxy. I'm still looking for a triangular planet, or a square planet. All fractals. Infact they all come from the kissing problem. How did I predict the sphere around the galaxy.. my list above.
Last edited:
I didn't read anything else, but I agree on this one PP
They've just managed to breed cuttelfish in the aquarium incidentally:
http://www.biology-blog.com/blogs/archives/Animal-science-blog/Jan-24-2010.html
So look at particular things and notice that for an order of magnitude they kinda look the same. Those aren't fractals, they might be considered 'pseudo-fractals' but they aren't true fractals.
The fact planets are spherical is nothing other than the properties of gravity. Hell, its tautological 'planets' are spherical.
You haven't provided any of the things about this 'sphere' (which you didn't realise was a sphere, you thought 'halo' meant ring, so you were wrong again) I said that physicists have provided. You couldn't justify any of your claims. Time and again you demonstrate you have to avoid replying to direct questions. This illustrates you are a fraud and you know you are. Notice how I quote and reply to your posts bit by bit, asking you questions each time? You ignore all my questions and don't respond to any of my points. You know you're a fraud but you can't admit it.
You're pretty useless at making a point. I posted a picture of a sphere around the Galaxy, so why would I think it was a ring? Why would I think it was a ring when I was talking about my theory starting with the Kissing problem? The Dark Rings around Saturn were created by a head on collision. The Galaxy has nothing to do with a head on collision. The links were to Halos, but because I use the word Halo to mean ring I didn't connect with the terminology. But I did predict it a long time before the news came out. Some of my posts go back years on other science sites.
I give up with talking to you. You seem to be just argumentative for fun, when actually there is science happening around you. discovering the Universe is more important than you money making schemes of new rocket fuel. Who needs maths to discover nature? You are just into it for money. Nearly every time you have said that I got something wrong it was because you couldn't understand what was going on in the posts, which probably means that you have learning difficulties, and are in need of help.
Last edited:
Pot meet kettle...kettle, pot.
You have previously referred to the halo in terms of rings.
And this does anything to counter the fact there are no dark rings around Saturn because....?
You have been provided with links to articles from 2000 which talk about them. You can't claim to predate that when your account is less than a year old. Telling such blatent lies does nothing to justify your position.
'Hack wacking' is a recreational pursuit of mine, I admit. The fact I point out your lies and your mistakes in a blunt manner doesn't absolve you of lying and being wrong.
Yes, it does happen around me because I work in a physics department.
You completely failed to grasp my point. In order to build machines to do something we need to understand the physical principles upon which those machines are built. You can't build an electricity generator if you don't understand electricity. You can't build a nuclear reactor if you don't understand nuclear physics. You have not provided a single example of a working understanding which is due to your 'work'. I used the example of rocket fuel to illustrate why numbers play a central role in physics.
I don't work in rocket fuel physics. In fact, I don't work in any area of physics which could be directly applied for monetary gain. I picked one of the few areas of theoretical physics which has an almost entirely abstract construction. Hell, I'm considered abstract by some string theorists! If I wanted to earn lots of money I'd not have done a PhD, I'd have gone into finance and earnt 6 figure sums by now (I'm 26). I went into physics to understand the universe, not to earn as much money as possible.
Ah, the ad hom*. You haven't provided any refutation of any criticism I'm level at you so you just say I have learning difficulties. And your evidence is what? That I don't agree with you? Not evidence. The fact is I have demonstrated a great deal of learning in mathematics and physics and I'm willing to go toe to toe with you on any topic in theoretical physics in some kind of formally structured debate. If I have learning difficulties when it comes to science why have I got more qualifications than you in it? Why have I published more work? Why have I achieved more? To have learning difficulties I would have to have difficulty learning what the average person does. Given I know more than the average person your entire basis of the insult evaporates. The fact is you've demonstrated a sub high school level understanding of science, which you claim to have a theory of everything for, and therefore one could make the argument you have 'learning difficulties' when it comes to science in a way which is supported by evidence.
*Please note my use of insults is the result of the evidence against your claims. I call you a liar because you have demonstrably lied. I call you an idiot because you've demonstrated stupidity in an area you claim to know a lot about.
Ok you've just gone completely crazy, and started posting misinformation, after misinformation. If you can't read what I post there's no point talking to you.
Calling me a liar, before 2000, when I never even mentioned 2000, is just one of your learning difficulties exposed. But there are at least 6 in this thread alone. squeeze a Cuttlefish... lol! You just can't read.
I don't really want to spell out you Saturn's rings mistake either. I can't be bothered with more of your lies.
Calling me a liar, before 2000, when I never even mentioned 2000, is just one of your learning difficulties exposed. But there are at least 6 in this thread alone. squeeze a Cuttlefish... lol! You just can't read.
I don't really want to spell out you Saturn's rings mistake either. I can't be bothered with more of your lies.