E=mc2 questions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Humans evolved from a single cell that all bio-logical life contains, the first cell I would deem to be plant life, mould like associated.

The T cell rings a bell?

p.s i got this from a BBc documentary and it made sense to be correct when considering algae growth etc.
 
Last edited:
theorist-constant12345 said:
I still deny it, I am showing you i know your anwsers and present information....
Click to expand...
Oh, geez, really? So when you make your claims, you actually know the right answer sometimes but purposely give the wrong one? Food for thought: if you just give a wrong answer instead of giving a right answer (according to science) and saying you disagree, how are we supposed to know you actually know the right answer and aren't just completely scientifically illiterate?

I think we're finished with the game now. I was trying to establish if you are actually capable of making correct statements if you want to. And I got even more than I was looking for: you are, but you purposely say wrong things. So that pretty much ices this as fairly pure trolling from you (thanks for the catch, Alex!).
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
Oh, geez, really? So when you make your claims, you actually know the right answer sometimes but purposely give the wrong one? Food for thought: if you just give a wrong answer instead of giving a right answer (according to science) and saying you disagree, how are we supposed to know you actually know the right answer and aren't just completely scientifically illiterate?
Click to expand...
When I make claims, I make those claims because I know your answer , what you deem to be the correct answer, I simply do not agree that your answer and the present answer is the correct answer.
My logic and observational axioms suggest that there is something amiss.

How do you know I know your answer? because those are the answers that lead me to what I consider findings. I have not so long ago just wrote your explanations back to you, i know what science says and I have logically concluded that there is different possibilities to several things, I believe science by acceptance has not dug deep enough into it, look at the Newton law's and the third law, it makes absolutely no logical sense when the ground is trying to travel in the same direction has the object on it. The explanation is simply not true or accurate by anyone's standards.
 
look at the Fn of an object said to be zero, that is not true when the constant of gravity is a constant applied force. The Fn is always equal to the mass so where does zero come from when this is obviously not correct?

You will reply with the ground pushes back, that is also untrue when the direction of the ground is centripetal along with the object of mass.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
When I make claims, I make those claims because I know your answer , what you deem to be the correct answer, I simply do not agree that your answer and the present answer is the correct answer.
Click to expand...
Again: how are we supposed to know when you are doing it on purpose and when you aren't if you don't tell us when you are?
 
Russ_Watters said:
Again: how are we supposed to know when you are doing it on purpose and when you aren't if you don't tell us when you are?
Click to expand...
Do what on purpose, I already said i know your science, so when I spout out an idea it is based on your science, this is how i got there to my ideas, I admit i am probably not correct on everything, but there is certain aspects that even being objective to myself, I see no other way and the present information not being quite accurate.

For example consider this thought, ''white light'' travels in a linearity until making contact with a medium or matter, and only then is it a wave by the propagation.
There is no way we would know that sentence not to be true.

because you have to let the light hit something to measure it.
 
Seattle said:
http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/schizophrenia-symptoms
Click to expand...
Yes heard that all before and then some, and you may want to consider reading the link yourself when im provided logical axioms that no one can deny in the right mind.

You forget Einstein's speed constant makes a visual constant of 3 dimensional space becoming none obscure to sight and see through . constant to all observers, it is only by propagation constants within the observed constant that we observe change in the observed constant.

White is white and not invisible within the visual constant and that is why I know white light is not really a good explanation.

''Light'' makes the constant obscurity of dark to sight, a none obscure constant to sight.
 
Last edited:
theorist-constant12345 said:
Yes heard that all before and then some, and you may want to consider reading the link yourself when im provided logical axioms that no one can deny in the right mind.

You forget Einstein's speed constant makes a visual constant of 3 dimensional space becoming none obscure to sight and see through . constant to all observers, it is only by propagation constants within the observed constant that we observe change in the observed constant.

White is white and not invisible within the visual constant and that is why I know white light is not really a good explanation.

''Light'' makes the constant obscurity of dark to sight, a none obscure constant to sight.
Click to expand...
?
 
exchemist said:
Farsight (Duffield) is a pretty serious autodidact, though he has in consequence some highly bizarre notions. And he can write English - he's actually had a book published, even though hardly anybody reads it. It's unfair to compare them, except that both exhibit a self-confidence that runs, shall we say, a little ahead of their competence.:biggrin:
Click to expand...
I think you give him too much cradit. Publishing a book means nothing because anyone can pay to have a book published -- but yes, that last bit is exactly the trait I was referring to as the main similarity amongst most crackpots. But the main point:

I don't buy the concept of a "serious autodidact" - I don't think I've ever heard a non-crackpot use it to describe himself. The word seems to me to just be a word crackpots use as an excuse/reason why they should be taken seriously despite not having a formal education in the subject they are trying to discuss. And Farsight's serious lack of knowledge of his favorite subject is clear evidence of the pitfall of the term. My theory is that most crackpots are people who stopped learning with the last thing they formally learned (or remember) from school and fill in the blanks with what they figure out on their own, which includes a lot of nonsense. So the main difference between TC and Farsight is the level at which they stopped learning. Yes, Farsight's level is much higher (high school or college freshman vs middle school for TC), but it is still a pretty remarkable failure to grow beyond that considering how basic/straightforward the concepts he butchers are.

Relativity is a good litmus test for self-learning because while the concepts are simple, they are also counter-intuitive. If a person can't learn a simple thing because it is counter-intuitive (so they refuse to believe it), that points to a serious learning deficiency.

I've (even as an adult) been told I'm arrogant about my intelligence, and that's something I try hard to avoid. As a kid, I would argue with my teachers a lot. Sometimes I'd be right, but not very often. In high school, I got in a long argument with my calculus teacher and he told me to just let it go and work the problem how he explained it and trust that when I got to the end I'd see that the answer and therefore method was right. And it was. That stuck with me. To me a "serious autodidact" is someone who is smart, but so arrogant that they reject learning from others and formal learning altogether and as a result, they don't learn much of anything.
 
exchemist said:
You, mate, can barely write a single sentence in decent English - as you have once more reconfirmed.
Click to expand...
Consider yourself lucky, I was really bad a couple of year back, I would not disagree that my literate qualities are not the best, this however does not mean I do not have the ability to think or in anyway makes me less smart, this just means that I am not a writer, although with deeper concentration I can produce a sentence.
 
Russ_Watters said:
I think you give him too much cradit. Publishing a book means nothing because anyone can pay to have a book published -- but yes, that last bit is exactly the trait I was referring to as the main similarity amongst most crackpots. But the main point:

I don't buy the concept of a "serious autodidact" - I don't think I've ever heard a non-crackpot use it to describe himself. The word seems to me to just be a word crackpots use as an excuse/reason why they should be taken seriously despite not having a formal education in the subject they are trying to discuss. And Farsight's serious lack of knowledge of his favorite subject is clear evidence of the pitfall of the term. My theory is that most crackpots are people who stopped learning with the last thing they formally learned (or remember) from school and fill in the blanks with what they figure out on their own, which includes a lot of nonsense. So the main difference between TC and Farsight is the level at which they stopped learning. Yes, Farsight's level is much higher (high school or college freshman vs middle school for TC), but it is still a pretty remarkable failure to grow beyond that considering how basic/straightforward the concepts he butchers are.

Relativity is a good litmus test for self-learning because while the concepts are simple, they are also counter-intuitive. If a person can't learn a simple thing because it is counter-intuitive (so they refuse to believe it), that points to a serious learning deficiency.

I've (even as an adult) been told I'm arrogant about my intelligence, and that's something I try hard to avoid. As a kid, I would argue with my teachers a lot. Sometimes I'd be right, but not very often. In high school, I got in a long argument with my calculus teacher and he told me to just let it go and work the problem how he explained it and trust that when I got to the end I'd see that the answer and therefore method was right. And it was. That stuck with me. To me a "serious autodidact" is someone who is smart, but so arrogant that they reject learning from others and formal learning altogether and as a result, they don't learn much of anything.
Click to expand...

Yes he does rather give the impression of having mugged it all up in front of a candle-lit shrine to Einstein, in his garage in Portsmouth or wherever it is. But he does understand concepts and can argue his (eccentric) case in fairly lucid English. T-C can do neither. With T-C it's a case of "My hovercraft is full of eels".
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I would not disagree that my literate qualities are not the best, this however does not mean I do not have the ability to think or in anyway makes me less smart
Click to expand...
I quite agree.
It's the other way round: it's BECAUSE you don't think and that you're less (than) smart that your literary (not "literate") qualities are "not the best". (Assuming that "not the best" is a euphemism for "verging on abysmal").
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Consider yourself lucky, I was really bad a couple of year back, I would not disagree that my literate qualities are not the best, this however does not mean I do not have the ability to think or in anyway makes me less smart, this just means that I am not a writer, although with deeper concentration I can produce a sentence.
Click to expand...

Then I sincerely exhort you to redouble your efforts.

I can assure you that getting your ideas clear in writing is a very good way to prevent them being crap. Because if, when you re-read it before sending, you find what you have written is not clear, it is quite likely that you are not yet clear in your ideas. We all think in words. So if you write entropy when you mean energy, or speed when you mean acceleration or distance, or weight when you mean mass, or linearity when you mean frequency, etc, you are corrupting your own thought processes. Choice of words really, really matters.
 
A good example is the post above to which I've replied with "?".

I have no idea of what point you are trying to make with that jumble of words.

I started to make a point about "white light" which doesn't exist as a frequency but by the time I got to the end of your sentence I decided not to respond as I couldn't even figure out what your point was.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Humans evolved from a single cell that all bio-logical life contains, the first cell I would deem to be plant life, mould like associated. The T cell rings a bell?
Click to expand...
The T cell is a specialized blood cell in mammalian blood that play a critical role in cell-mediated immunity. It has nothing to do with the "single cell we evolved from."
p.s i got this from a BBc documentary
Click to expand...
You have this habit of seeing something on TV or Youtube and posting it without having the faintest clue of what it is. Are you doing that because you feel it makes you look smarter? It's having the opposite effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top