Paper help.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to agree that with no sun it is dark, so you also have to agree that light travels through the dark, so therefore you have to agree that even in the dark time still exists, so you also have to agree that all matter travels through time in the dark, therefore concluding dark is time and space, and all interactions of matter in time and space can not effect time and space.
No dilation of time, no curvature of time and space.
Stop lying.
There appears to be something wrong with you, so as a kindness I will greatly decrease responding to you. Your inability to grasp the answers that you are given and your insistance on posting bizarre fantasies that you call 'axioms' is so frustrating that it results in posters (me included) getting nasty with you. If I do respond, I will do my best just to correct your errors and do it in a dispassionate way.
 
I sit a promise I will write to the tabloids and explain the lynch mob routine and the denial of axioms, yes for sure and I will also give them all that I have showing what is really what.
are you alos going to show them the prescription of your mental meds ?
 
No they dont, it is just the same garbage from you has always. I have tested my ideas on the public. In a court of law science would get its ass kicked by me.
the only thing that i can think of that the court of science would say is this,
" The evidence before the court is
Incontrovertible, there's no need for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penalty of law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
(Hey Judge! Shit on him!")
Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers. "
[pink floyd,the trial]
 
I really thought you understand science and what science was, and what science is about,
What you offer is not science, more fairy tales and delusions.
I do not just offer axioms ,
You havn't any.
I offer experimental observation.

No you offer delusions and fairy tales.

Presently no one has said anything involving science, except myself in this thread,

That at best is just more delusions, at worst you are lying

There is several axioms in this thread, that you are trying to deny.
You can not deny them, so stop being obtuse and please discuss this.


Sure, Dark is simply the absence of light.
Anyone will tell you that light is NOT the absence of darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. Light can be measured and defined...It travels in waves and can also act as a particle. Darkness can do neither. There is no source of darkness in the Universe. Lightness does have a source.

That has been known since ancient times, and is accepted today as the scientific reasoning of the subject.

I'm not real sure why I'm doing this, other then feeling sorry for such lack lustre intelligence in you not being able to see this.
I do know that it will make no difference to what you are claiming.



I reiterate, you can keep claiming this nonsense of yours until the cows come home. It is only you who believes it. Mainstream physics based on reasoning and logic, will always will reject such pseudoscince. In fact in this case, not even being a decent hypothesis, it would not even be considered.
So in effect and once again, it is only you who believes such absurdities, and when you fade away, so will such absurdities.
How many forums have you been banned from? Science forums I mean.
Why not try some religious forum? I'm sure there's some mention in the bible about darkness. You may get better reception there...afterall, they also deal in delusions.
 
Seriously are you guys from another world to the one I live on?

You all admit that dark is the absence of light, the non-existence or lack of.

To see, we have to add light to the....wait for it, the Dark.
The light travels through the dark.
Are you trying to say that a particle accelerator, Hadron Collider or what ever it is called, you send a Photon through the light, and a photon travels through the light?


You are denying axioms, being obtuse and treating science has some joke.
 
@Dyw

so therefore you have to agree that even in the dark time still exists
''Actually I stated that it does. YOU are the one claiming (falsely) it has a "value of zero" (i.e. doesn't exist) in the dark.''

so you also have to agree that all matter travels through time in the dark
''False "conclusion".''
'
therefore concluding dark is time and space
''Arrantly false "conclusion".''

and all interactions of matter in time and space can not effect time and space.​
''Inanely false "conclusion".''

No dilation of time, no curvature of time and space.​
''Insanely false "conclusion".''


Point to the mods, this opp does not answer questions, their favourite word is wrong, I see hardly ever any other words from this opp.


Ok, DYW, I am going to ask you in your own words explain why your answers are saying the axioms are wrong?

To explain then the correct answers to my supposedly wrong axioms from above.

1. I would really love to see your explanation of how we can time in a void , for one, we are not in the void to time, secondly it is dark, so you can not see to count anything. There is no atoms, so that stuffs the Caesium clock.
 
Ok, DYW, I am going to ask you in your own words explain why your answers are saying the axioms are wrong?
Once again you get it wrong.
You have CLAIMED that they're axioms.
You have failed - entirely and consistently - to show that this is true.

1. I would really love to see your explanation of how we can time in a void , for one, we are not in the void to time, secondly it is dark, so you can not see to count anything. There is no atoms, so that stuffs the Caesium clock.
Go back and READ what I've said on this.
 
Once again you get it wrong.
You have CLAIMED that they're axioms.
You have failed - entirely and consistently - to show that this is true.


Go back and READ what I've said on this.
you-It's also, as one would expect from you, ridiculously self-contradictory.

Trash please mods.

me-I fail to see where it is contradictory.
you-Well of course you fail to see that: it's part of your cluelessness.
me-This is to show, that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner.
A reality that looks at the true values
you-If the ONLY meaning is that created by practitioners then, by definition, there can be no "true values". And vice versa - if there is a "true value" then it's not created by practitioners.
me-The true values of reality, not a contradictory.
you-Wrong again.
you-If there ARE "true values" then, as I stated previously, it's absolutely false to claim that "there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by the practitioner".
THIS is the contradiction.

me-''Value theory encompasses a range of approaches to understanding how, why and to what degree people value things; whether the thing is a person, idea, object, or anything else.''
you-Yeah, and it might have been something to do with your point [sup]1[/sup] if YOU knew what it actually meant.

you-Trash please mods (along with every other thread/ post from this fool).

you-1 Which, as usual, is "comprehensible" to no one but you (mainly because you're utterly clueless on so many subjects).

me-Is it me, or is there some deluded members on this forum?
you-Yup, both.
There ARE deluded members on this forum.
And one of them is you.

me-Why in any instant would a topic with help in the title be thrown into a cesspool, when the topic is asking for peoples help.
you-Because
A) whatever actual help you get won't make any difference to the finished "product" - you've shown, time and again that you don't learn, and
B) the final result will be drivel, i.e. not worth reading anyway.

me-In answer to Russ, no , I do not use a translator, I am English, but never finished schooling, and from a lack of use of writing, have a bad habit of mixing nouns and verbs etc.
you-Along with not knowing how to punctuate, spell, formulate sentences correctly or fashion a coherent thought.

me-I still however , can not see how my abstract does not say anything, it says the paper will crucify science in a big way.
you-I.e. more evidence of your delusion and complete ignorance.
You don't know enough (by a long shot) to even challenge science, let alone "crucify" it.
me-Your arrogance and presumptions, is astonishing
you-Quite possibly, but they do come naturally...
However, neither are in evidence in my posts to you.
As you yourself pointed out not so long ago, I've seen you "in action".

me-I only have to make my presentation in a manner that is clearly understood.
you-Which you're not exactly capable of doing...

me-You can not predict my article, <paper>, will be of a gibberish nature.
you-Of course I can:
1) EVERYTHING you've posted - both here and on the other forum where I first encountered you - has been gibberish.
2) You don't know enough of, or about, science to challenge it.
3) Therefore ANY claim by you to be able to "crucify" science is, a priori, a false claim.

me-You simply do not understand my learning style, and what my learning capabilities are.
you-This is, in its entirety, simply bollocks. As I noted earlier, you have shown zero capacity for learning.

me-Do you honestly think , that I can not up my ''game''?
you-I know you can't.

me-that one could not start to produce the Queens English, in a manner of total discipline and of literate qualities!.
you-You can't.
And what English you do manage to write is barely literate.

I ask you Sir, please stop trolling my threads, you are hampering my learning.
you-You stop posting bollocks, I'll stop pointing out that you're posting bollocks.


In no way do you talk about the topic, above is the first page of this thread, and evidential your trolling. Anyone can see your constant insults.

For any younger members who may browse this forum, please ignore the profanities from this troll.
 
Last edited:
Blah, blah blah, blablah blah
In other words you've just selected the bits you wanted [1] and completely ignored the relevant parts that answered your previous question.
Well done loser.

1 I suppose it makes life easier for you and lets you continue in your delusion - much like your failure to acknowledge the fact that you've shown to be lying.
 
In other words you've just selected the bits you wanted [1] and completely ignored the relevant parts that answered your previous question.
Well done loser.

1 I suppose it makes life easier for you and lets you continue in your delusion - much like your failure to acknowledge the fact that you've shown to be lying.
There we go again with the insults. I went back has you suggested to read over the thread and your replies.
The first page was enough to realise that your replies have no value except to be disruptive. I would be wasting my time re-reading the rest, because I can not recall when your replies are any different. I asked you to explain earlier why the ideas were deemed wrong by yourself, and again you avoid the question.

I will rephrase, what do you consider to be time and space if you are objective to a void being time and space?

Why do you not consider ''time dilation'', being by less force of gravity on the Caesium atom , making the atom start to become in a dormancy state?
 
Why do you not consider ''time dilation'', being by less force of gravity on the Caesium atom , making the atom start to become in a dormancy state?
Because every single method of measuring time indicates that time is slowing. All methods indicate the same amount of dilation. The theory of relativity was rigirously developed indicating that time dilation was a consequence of the maximum speed that information can travel is c. Experimentation confirms the theoretical predictions of time dilation. It would be a rather amazing coincidence that some other effect was occurring and it just happened to match SR and GR don't you think?
 
The first page was enough to realise that your replies have no value except to be disruptive.
In other words you made your mind up and then didn't bother reading the ACTUAL replies that would have answered your question.

I would be wasting my time re-reading the rest, because I can not recall when your replies are any different.
Your faulty - or selective - memory isn't my problem.

I asked you to explain earlier why the ideas were deemed wrong by yourself, and again you avoid the question.
The question wasn't avoided. It appears, however, that you're avoiding the answers you've already been given.

I will rephrase, what do you consider to be time and space if you are objective to a void being time and space?
If you're going to rephrase it could you at least rephrase into meaningful English.
I have no idea what you're asking but you're definitely misusing the word "objective" here.

Why do you not consider ''time dilation'', being by less force of gravity on the Caesium atom , making the atom start to become in a dormancy state?
This is syntactically meaningless, and as such it's unanswerable.

I note that you're STILL not acknowledging the fact that you've lied.
 
You all admit that dark is the absence of light, the non-existence or lack of.
Right. Specifically it is the lack of enough light to see.
To see, we have to add light to the....wait for it, the Dark. The light travels through the dark.
Well, if a space is well lit, it is not dark. There is no physical quantity known as "the dark" just as there is no physical quantity known as "the empty." It is simply a description of a state lacking light.
Are you trying to say that a particle accelerator, Hadron Collider or what ever it is called, you send a Photon through the light, and a photon travels through the light?
Photons do indeed "pass through" each other. They can interact, but this is very, very rare. For example, in a recent attempt to force this to happen with the LHC, out of trillions of very high energy photons they generated, only 20 interacted.

So if you construct a device with two lasers that intersect each other, the two beams will pass through each other and continue on their merry way.
 
Seriously are you guys from another world to the one I live on?

You all admit that dark is the absence of light, the non-existence or lack of.

To see, we have to add light to the....wait for it, the Dark.
The light travels through the dark.
Are you trying to say that a particle accelerator, Hadron Collider or what ever it is called, you send a Photon through the light, and a photon travels through the light?


You are denying axioms, being obtuse and treating science has some joke.
the joke is, you have said nothing important to anything. basically all you have ever said was dark is the dominate element. nothing more.
 
''Actually I stated that it does. YOU are the one claiming (falsely) it has a "value of zero" (i.e. doesn't exist) in the dark.''
In all fairness this is just not true!

This is what you stated in post 61.
You can time the laser, but you can not time the dark. Time still exists in the dark, but at an unchanging zero value. That is logical fact.
That idea is neither logical nor a fact, by the way.
 
Because every single method of measuring time indicates that time is slowing. All methods indicate the same amount of dilation. The theory of relativity was rigirously developed indicating that time dilation was a consequence of the maximum speed that information can travel is c. Experimentation confirms the theoretical predictions of time dilation. It would be a rather amazing coincidence that some other effect was occurring and it just happened to match SR and GR don't you think?
It amazes me every time I log into this forum to view the comments, the amount of willful blindness to reality.
Read what you have just wrote and consider what you have just stated. You have just stated that time is a device, ''all methods indicate the same dilation'', to the gravity constant, not to time. How many times must I say that TIME, IS NOT A DEVICE............
A dilation of timing by gravity having effect on the mechanism, is not a change in time.
Timing in a void can not be counted, there is no matter for timing, therefore the value is no start to time, and no end to time in a void. No light, no particles, no matter, a complete negativity.
Time still exists in the void, but nothing else except spacial emptiness. Hence , Time and space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top