I've already given you an example of how this logic is flawed.I said I knew the Theory Of Everything, I didn't say I knew the maths for it, I said I didn't know the maths for it.
Except you can't provide any justification for your explainations. You aren't using experiments or data, you just make it up. You claim there's a Bose-Einstein condensate in neurons. But there isn't and no amount of "Lets get someone to do the mathematics" can negate the fact the explaination is wrong.But I can explain it, and I can explain how to work on the Formula by explaining what is happening during almost any physical event in science. Forget Chemistry for now, just common science, and QS.
I've already given you an example of how this logic is flawed.
Newton said gravity bends the path of light. A light ray passing the Sun will be causes to bend around the Sun slightly. In 1919 a solar eclipse was used to see if light bends around the Sun. The experiment provided evidence for this bending but Newton was thrown in the bin. Why?
Because he predicted the wrong amount. Superficially he made a correct statement about gravity and light. But when you actually work out the specifics he turned out to be wrong. If you can't give the details then you haven't got any claim to have understood or explained the universe or a theory of everything.
Except you can't provide any justification for your explainations. You aren't using experiments or data, you just make it up. You claim there's a Bose-Einstein condensate in neurons. But there isn't and no amount of "Lets get someone to do the mathematics" can negate the fact the explaination is wrong.
You know nothing of the universe and yet you claim to understand it.
You claim there's a Bose-Einstein condensate in neurons. But there isn't and no amount of "Lets get someone to do the mathematics" can negate the fact the explaination is
If Radium emits light, how come the ink is black?
Good enough for me. The E codes are Fadel fixture offsets.
Well, I guess he could have. Sometimes I forget how awesome the internet is. If that was the case then he know that he is a liar. Everyone that works in a machine shop has a copy of those codes in their toolbox so he could havs been looking at that for all we know. I guess I could have asked what the two standard edge radiuses are for any coated carbide endmill insert or how much grind stock he should leave on the workpiece or even what the difference is between a climb cut and a plunge cut. But then again, just about everything can be found via Google. I was off topic and didn't feel the need to troll any further.Originally Posted by Philogistician
And he couldn't have used Google to find machine codes?
Well, I guess he could have. Sometimes I forget how awesome the internet is. If that was the case then he know that he is a liar. Everyone that works in a machine shop has a copy of those codes in their toolbox so he could havs been looking at that for all we know. I guess I could have asked what the two standard edge radiuses are for any coated carbide endmill insert or how much grind stock he should leave on the workpiece or even what the difference is between a climb cut and a plunge cut. But then again, just about everything can be found via Google. I was off topic and didn't feel the need to troll any further.
and I was soon after working on computer game graphics which didn't require any maths. So I can't remember much of it.
Bullshit upon bullshit. Graphics are ALL about maths, unless you're talking about some crappy 2D scroller, in which case that's hardly 'working on graphics' and more like 'splodging out flat 2D bitmaps'.
Here's a silly one about my Theories...
Every single experiment in the Universe at your disposal. This Pincho generator has over a billion facts that you wish you never knew!
Download the Rar, and you will need to unpack it with one of the free unpackers...