Could CuttleFish Ink Be Used As A Sourse Of Radium (Radioactive)?

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

I reply to your posts point by point with comment. I am respond to each thing in your post I think should be replied to. This is hardly 'going crazy', its attempting to form a discussion but your unwillingness to support your claims or reply to direct questions is making any kind of coherent discussion difficult. If I've been wrong about several things quote them, one at a time, and retort them, just as I do with things you say I retort. Simply waving your arms and proclaiming my post misinformation doesn't make it so.

Calling me a liar, before 2000, when I never even mentioned 2000, is just one of your learning difficulties exposed

You claimed you made predictions about dark matter halos before results came out supposedly confirming your claims. In a different thread (I think) someone pointed out to you that dark matter halo observations go back at least as far as the year 2000. Hence your claim of preempting results is false.

But there are at least 6 in this thread alone.

So go through them in turn.

squeeze a Cuttlefish... lol! You just can't read.

So the fact you weren't clear and I believe you stupid enough to make such a claim means that you weren't wrong by actually stating Radium glows when squeezed. Any way you look at it you made a claim about something in nature which is patently false. Hence I've pointed it out and citied it as proof you don't have a valid theory of everything as if you did you'd know that Radium doesn't glow under pressure.

I don't really want to spell out you Saturn's rings mistake either.

You haven't spelled out any relevant mistake of mine. You claimed Radium would glow when squeezed. The fact I thought you meant the fish doesn't make you magically right about Radium. Neither Radium nor cuttlefish glow when squeezed so which one you referred to is actually not important. You were wrong either way.

I can't be bothered with more of your lies.

So you can't be bothered with me pointing out and explaining your mistakes but when you lie about having ideas which explain gravity or thought or could cure eczema I'm supposed to just keep quiet?!

If you want me to shut up, put me in my place. Put your theory of everything where your mouth is and demonstrate what I've been saying is not true and infact you do have a working model of gravity or some other phenomenon. Cranks complain when I point out they can't justify themselves. If they just justified themselves I'd not be pointing out they can't. Ergo if you wish to quieten me don't give me things to criticise.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You claimed you made predictions about dark matter halos before results came out supposedly confirming your claims. In a different thread (I think) someone pointed out to you that dark matter halo observations go back at least as far as the year 2000. Hence your claim of preempting results is false.

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.

Notice I said a sphere around the Galaxy. Nothing from 2000 mentioned a sphere around the Galaxy. That was posted 6th Feb 2010.

So the fact you weren't clear and I believe you stupid enough to make such a claim means that you weren't wrong by actually stating Radium glows when squeezed. Any way you look at it you made a claim about something in nature which is patently false. Hence I've pointed it out and citied it as proof you don't have a valid theory of everything as if you did you'd know that Radium doesn't glow under pressure.

Glowing under pressure is just something that you do not understand. But I have already posted the theory, and obviously it didn't even compute in your mind.

Now stop your lying, and state facts.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Notice I said a sphere around the Galaxy. Nothing from 2000 mentioned a sphere around the Galaxy. That was posted 6th Feb 2010.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481046&postcount=33
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481049&postcount=34
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481142&postcount=38

You confused halos and spheres. Further more Trippy's posts demonstrate such notions were put forward and experimentally justified about a decade ago. You have nothing new. In fact you have nothing since you haven't provided any working testable model.

Glowing under pressure is just something that you do not understand.

How do I not understand it? I know more about pressure, radioactivity and thermodynamics than you. You haven't done any experiments, you have no experience with such experiments or the theories which describe them. I have working knowledge in nuclear physics and thermodynamics. You do not. So how can you possibly claim that you understand an experiment you haven't done, whose out comes you incorrectly predicted, and whose working description you have no knowledge of.

You simply assert your claim, you don't justify it. You don't understand radioactivity in pressured materials. This is not an unjustified assertion from me, its a fact because you have made an incorrect claim about them, one falsified by reality. Explain how me telling you a demonstrable fact is 'not understanding'? And then explain how you have understanding when you know neither theory nor experiment.

Now stop your lying, and state facts.

Please state where I have, in your view, lied and demonstrate it. I have demonstrated you have lied, why can't you do the same if I'm supposedly lying?

It is a fact that Radium doesn't glow when squeezed, nor does any other material radioactive or otherwise. To claim I don't understand it because I'm telling you something you don't want to hear is flawed logic. Something you are very good at, if being wrong all the time can be considered 'good'.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481046&postcount=33
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481049&postcount=34
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2481142&postcount=38

You confused halos and spheres. Further more Trippy's posts demonstrate such notions were put forward and experimentally justified about a decade ago. You have nothing new. In fact you have nothing since you haven't provided any working testable model.

How do I not understand it? I know more about pressure, radioactivity and thermodynamics than you. You haven't done any experiments, you have no experience with such experiments or the theories which describe them. I have working knowledge in nuclear physics and thermodynamics. You do not. So how can you possibly claim that you understand an experiment you haven't done, whose out comes you incorrectly predicted, and whose working description you have no knowledge of.

You simply assert your claim, you don't justify it. You don't understand radioactivity in pressured materials. This is not an unjustified assertion from me, its a fact because you have made an incorrect claim about them, one falsified by reality. Explain how me telling you a demonstrable fact is 'not understanding'? And then explain how you have understanding when you know neither theory nor experiment.

Please state where I have, in your view, lied and demonstrate it. I have demonstrated you have lied, why can't you do the same if I'm supposedly lying?

It is a fact that Radium doesn't glow when squeezed, nor does any other material radioactive or otherwise. To claim I don't understand it because I'm telling you something you don't want to hear is flawed logic. Something you are very good at, if being wrong all the time can be considered 'good'.

Was going to put you on my ignore list, but noticed those videos of M theory in your messages, watched them and saw how stupid mathematicians are. I think I'll just leave you alone. M theory...lol! 11 dimensions??? How come a mathematician can't realise that the things that he said work in 3 simple dimensions? You need me a lot more than I need you that's for sure. Do you know why people keep sticking in extra dimensions? It's because you have gravity back to front, and you're all scrambling like mad chickens to figure out a way to get round it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Lol, Ok so you are a Rainman Maths Savant who can't read or make much sense OK I have learned that now.

Good ad hom. You couldn't retort anything I said or justify your claims so you fall back on the standard crank "If he's good at maths he's rubbish at everything else" logic. It would seem my grasp of the English language is sufficient to have got you stuck by your lies.

I think I'll just leave you alone. M theory...lol! 11 dimensions???

And the "Its counter intuitive to me therefore its wrong" crank logic. You're so stereotypical its not even funny. You think you're a 'da Vinci genius' with all these novel ideas but in reality you're just another failed hack.

How come a mathematician can't realise that the things that he said work in 3 simple dimensions?

You've changed your tune. I previously told you that you can't get black rings unless you have a 5th dimension and you didn't bat an eyelid at that. Now you're stuck with nothing to retort my criticisms of your claims you have to be a hypocrite and suddenly start rubbishing something you previously didn't mind. If you knew any relativity, which is an experimentally justified model of gravity, you'd know that in 3 spacial dimensions Birkhoffs theorem prevents black rings forming. Another false statement from you.

You need me a lot more than I need you that's for sure.

Funny, I've managed to publish 3 papers on string theory without your help. And science in general has managed everything thus far without your help. If you think I need your help why can't you answer ANY question I ask you? Why do you have to avoid responding to direct questions? Why would I want the help of someone who doesn't even accept reality? If you can't answer a direct question you are useless to science, irrespective of whether you have any insight into it.

Do you know why people keep sticking in extra dimensions?

No, it never came up during the 3 years I spent writing published work on the extra dimensions of string theory in order to obtain a PhD.

It's because you have gravity back to front, and you're all scrambling like mad chickens to figure out a way to get round it.

Actually by exactly the same method by which you derive the number of space-time dimensions in string theory you also find that string theory predicts (in fact it requires it) the existence of gravity and in such a way as to experimentally validated. Unlike your 'work' it actually provides working models which allow people to work out the behaviour of gravitational systems. Unlike you it produced results.

Come on, if you're so cock sure of yourself put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you write up your ideas about how to cure eczema and submit them to a journal? If you don't provide help when people ask how can any one believe you're able to give any help?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Good ad hom. You couldn't retort anything I said or justify your claims so you fall back on the standard crank "If he's good at maths he's rubbish at everything else" logic. It would seem my grasp of the English language is sufficient to have got you stuck by your lies.

And the "Its counter intuitive to me therefore its wrong" crank logic. You're so stereotypical its not even funny. You think you're a 'da Vinci genius' with all these novel ideas but in reality you're just another failed hack.

You've changed your tune. I previously told you that you can't get black rings unless you have a 5th dimension and you didn't bat an eyelid at that. Now you're stuck with nothing to retort my criticisms of your claims you have to be a hypocrite and suddenly start rubbishing something you previously didn't mind. If you knew any relativity, which is an experimentally justified model of gravity, you'd know that in 3 spacial dimensions Birkhoffs theorem prevents black rings forming. Another false statement from you.

Funny, I've managed to publish 3 papers on string theory without your help. And science in general has managed everything thus far without your help. If you think I need your help why can't you answer ANY question I ask you? Why do you have to avoid responding to direct questions? Why would I want the help of someone who doesn't even accept reality? If you can't answer a direct question you are useless to science, irrespective of whether you have any insight into it.

No, it never came up during the 3 years I spent writing published work on the extra dimensions of string theory in order to obtain a PhD.

Actually by exactly the same method by which you derive the number of space-time dimensions in string theory you also find that string theory predicts (in fact it requires it) the existence of gravity and in such a way as to experimentally validated. Unlike your 'work' it actually provides working models which allow people to work out the behaviour of gravitational systems. Unlike you it produced results.

Come on, if you're so cock sure of yourself put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you write up your ideas about how to cure eczema and submit them to a journal? If you don't provide help when people ask how can any one believe you're able to give any help?

Yeah Birkhoff of course is bound to be right.. lol! Ok so to me you believe in God. Pity for the wasted brainspace.
Did you manage to remember that Birkoff had gravity as a pull? Lol you are so forgetfull. Did you remember what I said about the lame attempts to add new dimensions to fix problems, and your Birkoff did the same thing?

You've changed your tune. I previously told you that you can't get black rings unless you have a 5th dimension and you didn't bat an eyelid at that.

yeah, but your guys add hidden dimensions, which is just crazy.

Did you not realise that Saturn can have rings with a flow / push gravity, and that the rings would have close to no gravity, and that they could even have rocks inside them?

No of course you can't figure that out, because it isn't in a book.

Stick to books, oh wait.. you can't read my posts?

Stick to videos.

 

[Read-Only]

Why hasn't someone seen fit to remove this brain-dead egotistical nut-job from our midst? He knows nothing about real science and his "entertainment value" was worn out long ago.

In fact, his nonsense doesn't even live up to the lowly standards required for pseudoscience - all his posts/threads should be dumped directly in the cesspool.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yeah Birkhoff of course is bound to be right.. lol! Ok so to me you believe in God. Pity for the wasted brainspace.

If you had actually learnt physics you'd know what Birkhoffs theorem is. Its the mathematical statement that in 4 dimensions there is one and only one solutions to the Einstein Field Equations which has no charge and zero overall angular momentum, the Schwarzchild solution. It's, roughly, the mathematical statement that you don't have enough degrees of freedom in 4 dimensional space-time to be able to form sufficiently complicated systems that you have a black hole with overall zero angular momentum but particular components have non-zero angular momentum.

You jumping to 'Oh so you believe in God' is just plain ignorant. I'm applying the logically structure of mathematics to be able to make predictions about the universe, just like a NASA scientist would use gravitational models to make a prediction on how much rocket fuel the Shuttle needs. Logic, rigour and prediction. Three things you have completely failed to use.

Did you manage to remember that Birkoff had gravity as a pull? Lol you are so forgetfull. Did you remember what I said about the lame attempts to add new dimensions to fix problems, and your Birkoff did the same thing?

You simply make up things when you don't know. You obviously don't know who Birkhoff was or what he did and so you simply make up a series of lies in order to try to justify your point of view. You haven't been able to reply to anything I said and now you're having to make up lies. Hardly makes you look like you're worth listening to.

Did you not realise that Saturn can have rings with a flow / push gravity, and that the rings would have close to no gravity, and that they could even have rocks inside them?

Until you can come up with a predictive quantitative model which is consistent with experiments/observations you are simply making up unjustified claims. You complain about me mentioning Birkhoff's theorem, which is a mathematically true statement, but you have no problem making up your own unjustified claims. You're a hypocrite.

No of course you can't figure that out, because it isn't in a book.

Once again you fall back on the standard crank logic. Just because, unlike you, I have read books it doesn't mean I get all my information from books or am incapable of coming up with things myself. I get most of my information from talking to physicists, which I do regularly as I work face to face with many, and from reading published papers. I previously linked you to www.arxiv.org. I read papers from the hep-th section. I also have come up with my own work and gotten it published in reputable journals, which is more than you have managed. So your claim "Of you couldn't figure it out, its not in a book" is just yet another ad hom lie from you which you're having to fall back on because you can't respond to any of my criticism of your claims.

When you have nothing but ad homs and lies it proves all I've been saying about you. You're a liar, a fraud and a failure.

 

[Uno Hoo]

It is my personal opinion that NOONE could economically use cuttlefish ink as a SOURSE of Radium (Radioactive).

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If you had actually learnt physics you'd know what Birkhoffs theorem is. Its the mathematical statement that in 4 dimensions there is one and only one solutions to the Einstein Field Equations which has no charge and zero overall angular momentum, the Schwarzchild solution. It's, roughly, the mathematical statement that you don't have enough degrees of freedom in 4 dimensional space-time to be able to form sufficiently complicated systems that you have a black hole with overall zero angular momentum but particular components have non-zero angular momentum.

You jumping to 'Oh so you believe in God' is just plain ignorant. I'm applying the logically structure of mathematics to be able to make predictions about the universe, just like a NASA scientist would use gravitational models to make a prediction on how much rocket fuel the Shuttle needs. Logic, rigour and prediction. Three things you have completely failed to use.

You simply make up things when you don't know. You obviously don't know who Birkhoff was or what he did and so you simply make up a series of lies in order to try to justify your point of view. You haven't been able to reply to anything I said and now you're having to make up lies. Hardly makes you look like you're worth listening to.

Until you can come up with a predictive quantitative model which is consistent with experiments/observations you are simply making up unjustified claims. You complain about me mentioning Birkhoff's theorem, which is a mathematically true statement, but you have no problem making up your own unjustified claims. You're a hypocrite.

Once again you fall back on the standard crank logic. Just because, unlike you, I have read books it doesn't mean I get all my information from books or am incapable of coming up with things myself. I get most of my information from talking to physicists, which I do regularly as I work face to face with many, and from reading published papers. I previously linked you to www.arxiv.org. I read papers from the hep-th section. I also have come up with my own work and gotten it published in reputable journals, which is more than you have managed. So your claim "Of you couldn't figure it out, its not in a book" is just yet another ad hom lie from you which you're having to fall back on because you can't respond to any of my criticism of your claims.

When you have nothing but ad homs and lies it proves all I've been saying about you. You're a liar, a fraud and a failure.

You love mentioning your published work. I wonder if your work fits in with real nature? Or is it one of the hundreds of papers that doesn't really work apart from predicting situations in a certain eco system that luckily for you people have had results with.. like Newton, and Einstein? Who found different thing to what they thought they found, but at least the maths worked. Relativity for example is a flow of particles, but fortunately they flow at the right speed for them to almost match what Einstein said.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You love mentioning your published work.

Because its the ultimate trump card when talking with you hacks. Cranks keep saying how I can't think creatively or I only know what books tell me and the fact I have published original work proves not all that all those criticisms are false but I'm much more successful as a physicist than they (ie you) will ever be.

I wonder if your work fits in with real nature? Or is it one of the hundreds of papers that doesn't really work apart from predicting situations in a certain eco system that luckily for you people have had results with.. like Newton, and Einstein?

You wouldn't understand my work.

And I think its pretty hypocritical of you to say that given you have not provided a single original innovative working model of any bit of nature.

Who found different thing to what they thought they found, but at least the maths worked. Relativity for example is a flow of particles, but fortunately they flow at the right speed for them to almost match what Einstein said.

Once again you simply make up things because you have nothing true to say to back up your claims. You have never done relativity, never studied it and don't understand it yet you try to tell me, someone who has studied it, what is supposedly does.

Prove your claim, demonstrate that relativity is actually 'a flow of particles'. From a particulate based theory construct the Einstein Field Equations, or something which reduces to them as an effective theory. If you can't do that then you have simply made yet another claim you can't back up.

Are you so desperate for attention that you have to lie about things you know you've never read about to someone you know has read about it? Don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining, it just makes you look more and more pathetic and desperate.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I predicted the sphere shape around the Galaxy. My next prediction is the inner spheres of the Galaxy. If you know of a site that predicts this then post it. I'm also going to show you exactly how the brain works.. which nobody yet knows but me. After that, I'm going to work on DNA.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm also going to show you exactly how the brain works..

In your case: badly.
And stop spamming other crackpots' threads. Stick to your own threads where we can ignore you.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I predicted the sphere shape around the Galaxy.

You really need to learn the difference between what you say and an actual scientific prediction. You STILL haven't provided a working model of gravity or even defined what dark matter is so your claims about having predicted and explained something are completely baseless.

My next prediction is the inner spheres of the Galaxy. If you know of a site that predicts this then post it.

The galactic bulge? Welcome to 200 years ago.

I'm also going to show you exactly how the brain works.

Unless you provide a model of electrochemical processes which occur within synapses of the brain and examine the emergent properties of the signals which propagate through them you don't show anything.

You don't even know how acids work. The brain's synapses work via ion exchanges and so if you can't grasp basic chemistry how can you explain an electrochemical process? The answer is you can't.

Every time you say "I have explained...." ask yourself if someone could take your explanation and use it to form an accurate computer model of the system in question. If not then you haven't explained anything. You claim to have explained dark matter halos but you can't tell me how dark matter moves about the galaxy or tell me how it interacts with itself and other matter. I can't construct a working model of dark matter dynamics with your 'explanation' and so you haven't explained it and you haven't justified your claims. Giving a wordy explanation which is superficially viable doesn't mean its right. Newton and Einstein both predict gravity will bend the path of light rays. Only Einstein predicts the amount it bends correctly. If you can't provide a working model you have FAILED to explain anything.

which nobody yet knows but me.

How could you know how the brain works when you know nothing of biology or chemistry. You have no medical training, no experience with biochemistry or organic chemistry. You have not studied the structures of the brain or its development. You have no knowledge of even the chemicals which make up the brain. You have no experimental data about the brain and no knowledge or understanding of the relevant science and yet you think you have magically just arrived at an 'explanation'.

Do you hear voices in your head? It's just that any rational person would realise they cannot know about something they have no information about and which they have never examined or studied or learnt about.

If I said that I know the colour of your eyes you would reply "How can you, you haven't met me and I've never said what colour my eyes are.". If I continued to state "I know what colour your eyes are!" you'd say "Its impossible for you to know as we've never met, you have no information about me, you're just guessing!". Well you're doing precisely the same here. You have no information about the brain or anything pertaining to it yet you make statements that you know the truth. Either you know you're lying and are doing so deliberately or you are delusional.

After that, I'm going to work on DNA

Either you are an idiot with too much time on his hands trying to wind people up or you are possibly the most delusionally ignorant dipshit I have ever come across. You beat all the other cranks here, you are utterly detached from reality.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

It's a pity you can't understand my posts. I already outline Dark Matter. Dark matter is plank sized material that has been put under pressure by Gravity being a push. The pressure collapses the Plank Material into holes, and veins through space. the plank material undergoes a fractal conversion through several stages of size, due to its icosahedral shape which forms membrane, and star shaped holes, valleys, and veins. The holes are Black Holes of several shapes. The smallest material is the Aether , there are several sizes up from this all invisible, all called dark matter. The scale of each stage of this production determines which materials they will lock with. So there are streams with several sizes of materials, all invisible, and all able to lock with different sized matter. Gravity, magnetism, sound, photon, are all different locking scales of the material. Most material lock due to the igloo effect of sphere all being pushed, and pulled until they lock together. Photons are slightly different, as they are locked by spin in a Black Hole. It's like being caught by a Baseball Glove. They then continue to spin to produce a spin speed which is colour information. So dark matter overall is all of the scale of matter that light does not interact with, and there are a few scales. All of this matter is caught inside Black Streams, and Black streams can flow faster than other matter, because they have little to interact with due to the scale of the material. The outer edges of the black streams are locked by igloo locking. Black Halos are locked due to a black hole membrane that is supported by dark matter inside the spacing. Because gravity is in fact a push, the membrane is easily supported from natural two way pressure. The kissing problem finally scales up into a more 2D formation for a Galaxy, as the scale cannot be completely even in the X,Y,Z membrane. Only one of the sides of the igloo opens into a hole, and a galaxy ends up as a 2D structure, made from 3D sphere.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Every time you say "I have explained...." ask yourself if someone could take your explanation and use it to form an accurate computer model of the system in question. If not then you haven't explained anything. You claim to have explained dark matter halos but you can't tell me how dark matter moves about the galaxy or tell me how it interacts with itself and other matter. I can't construct a working model of dark matter dynamics with your 'explanation' and so you haven't explained it and you haven't justified your claims. Giving a wordy explanation which is superficially viable doesn't mean its right. Newton and Einstein both predict gravity will bend the path of light rays. Only Einstein predicts the amount it bends correctly. If you can't provide a working model you have FAILED to explain anything.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Every time you say "I have explained...." ask yourself if someone could take your explanation and use it to form an accurate computer model of the system in question. If not then you haven't explained anything. You claim to have explained dark matter halos but you can't tell me how dark matter moves about the galaxy or tell me how it interacts with itself and other matter. I can't construct a working model of dark matter dynamics with your 'explanation' and so you haven't explained it and you haven't justified your claims. Giving a wordy explanation which is superficially viable doesn't mean its right. Newton and Einstein both predict gravity will bend the path of light rays. Only Einstein predicts the amount it bends correctly. If you can't provide a working model you have FAILED to explain anything.

I predicted the Bubble around the Galaxy, because I never read about it before, and I'd never heard of Dark Halos. I also know that it has at least one hole hole in it on the X axis, but most likely 6 holes (the kissing problem), which created the 2D alignment of the Galaxy. I also know that the Dark Matter image in the news is the pressure against the bubble, and not the bubble itself, it is like the wind against the bubble. The bubble is much tidier. I also know that adding pressure to the bubble with same sized material creates a nebula, although I don't advise risking it, in case you break a hole in it. It is basically a larger scale model of our Ozone Layer. The Universe also has a large membrane, and beyond the visible universe is the planck material... I can even see beyond the visible Universe.

 

[Read-Only]

I predicted the Bubble around the Galaxy, because I never read about it before, and I'd never heard of Dark Halos. I also know that it has at least one hole hole in it on the X axis, but most likely 6 holes (the kissing problem), which created the 2D alignment of the Galaxy. I also know that the Dark Matter image in the news is the pressure against the bubble, and not the bubble itself, it is like the wind against the bubble. The bubble is much tidier. I also know that adding pressure to the bubble with same sized material creates a nebula, although I don't advise risking it, in case you break a hole in it. It is basically a larger scale model of our Ozone Layer. The Universe also has a large membrane, and beyond the visible universe is the planck material... I can even see beyond the visible Universe.

You just triggered my gag reflex!!! Yeech!!!!

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Another of my predictions can be seen in this article. I predicted bubbles from Black Holes way before this article was posted...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085754.htm

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I also know that it has at least one hole hole in it on the X axis, but most likely 6 holes (the kissing problem), which created the 2D alignment of the Galaxy.

If the galaxy is surrounded by a sphere then surely there'd be 12 holes, since 12 spheres can touch the surface of a sphere. 6 circles can touch the edge of a circle but a circle is 1 dimensional (and lies in a 2d plane), which the galaxy's halo, by your own posts, is not.

and beyond the visible universe is the planck material

I must have asked you more than half a dozen times now to define what 'planck material' (and it should be a capital P since 'Planck' is someone's surname) is and every time you've ignored the direct question. You claim to have a theory of everything yet you can't even tell me what your fundamental material is.

I can even see beyond the visible Universe.

You have delusions of grandeur. You can't seem to accept you don't understand the science other people do understand and so you've convinced yourself everyone else's work isn't worth listening to and that you're telling the gospel truth. You keep avoiding direct questions which challenge claims you make which means either you know you're lying or you are compartmentalising your beliefs such that you can buy the crap you're selling.

You keep claiming you've got answers to big questions and can see 'beyond the visible universe' yet you can't answer simple direct questions about things here on Earth. You avoid making claims about things we can easily measure because that would mean you'd be instantly falsified. Instead you keep making vague claims about tenuous things and then refusing to be more precise about your claims.

Define 'Planck material'. Give me its mass and quantum numbers under the Standard Model. Give me interaction cross sections between it and things we can measure. Give me the properties of any bound states it might form and how we can measure it. If you can't do that you have nothing.