maybe the poster you are looking for will come along one day and actually provide you with the intellectual challenge that you want
I get plenty of intellectual challenges at work thanks, where I deal with other mathematicians and physicists doing useful practical science.
But you're misrepresenting me (again!). I'm not saying "You're talking nonsense, are you trolling?" because I feel you don't provide
me with an intellectual challenge (though, as it happens, you don't) but rather than you're
talking nonsense. When someone is being so nonsensical they appear to be detaching from reality yet think they are saying something interesting and scientific then whether they be smarter than me or dumber than me, more informed than me, less informed than me, saying "You're talking nonsense" is a valid statement to make.
You keep trying to imply my rejection of your ideas and the ideas of other people in this sub-forum are something to do with ego. That I fear you might be onto something. It isn't. I long ago had any delusions of grandeur burnt out of me by the trial by fire which is university. I have no problem saying most of the friends I had doing the same course as me were better than me at it. Then at PhD level I was a pretty unremarkable string theorist on the scale of things (though it's a pretty high scale). Am I bitter about it? No, I can still make contributions to science which most people couldn't ever even understand. Am I scared that some of the science I learnt or perhaps even did might be wrong? No because I
know some of the science I've learnt will one day be replaced by something more fundamental. That doesn't mean I can't put the current models to good use. I know Newtonian mechanics is wrong on just about everything when you get down to the accurate details but it's still useful to know if you're wanting to build a bridge or put a man on the Moon.
I know you want the reason everyone with an ounce of science education rejects your work to be down to some psychological issues they have but the fact of the matter is your ideas are laughably bad. By an objective scientific standard your work fails to be anything remotely scientific. You fail to present any justification for your claims. You make assertions about area of maths or physics you have no experience of, either theoretically or practically. You ignore when you have mistakes explained to you. You have no grasp of the scientific method and you don't bother to find out anything of any detail about something before you make claims about it. All of those things can be seen on an objective evaluation of the various threads you've been making recently, it isn't me throwing stones out of some fear.
The only place you could make some non-pathetic case for ego coming into it is how I'm one of the more vocal people for denouncing hacks and even there ego isn't the reason. Out of such people on this forum I'm also the one who will spend the most time going through claims line by line and explaining the cacophony of mistakes, misconceptions and misrepresentations a hack has made. I don't do it to somehow validate myself. Even if I were in need of some existential justification you'd not provide it. Pointing out various people here are hacks and have many mistakes etc in their understanding/reasoning is easy. I don't think before I compose posts, I just rattle them off, demonstrations and explanations of your various mistakes being immediately obvious. If I wanted to get ego kicks from knocking someone down I'd pick someone who was a challenge, someone I'd need to put effort into. In a race you don't feel pride by running faster than the fat disabled kid, you feel pride when you out run someone fast. Guess which one you are in that analogy. But that's assuming I needed to knock people down to convince myself I'm worth something as a scientist. I get that in my job. I get it by doing actual science.
Maybe one day you'll come out of whatever rose tinted backside you have your head up and you'll learn some proper science and put some proper effort in. On that day you'll realise just how insignificant hack claims are to someone who can actually do science. The reason I explain to people like you the mistakes you make is because you present yourself as someone with understanding and like to think you've got something viable to say about science. By illustrating how effortlessly someone with some understanding can blow you out of the water others can see that 1. they shouldn't give your claims the time of say and 2. putting in the time and effort to learn science provides someone with a wide range of knowledge and abilities.
Demonstrable knowledge and abilities.
But I'm sure I've taken up enough of your time with this post. No doubt you have to get back to your 'science' of tornadoes and zero point theory. Got any other ideas? Maybe cosmic rays cause zero point energy at the centre of the Earth to undergo infinite recursion and promote a paradox in the ionosphere, causing muon decays to induce tornadoes.
