What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
Galaxies satisfy my concept, I don't really need more than Galaxies, apart from G. Gravity should be a ripple through all of your arenas to remove the current version of G (an infinite pull). Because the infinite pull theory contains yet another unlimited power variable. A push that ripples from the back to the front of all arenas however is not unlimited, it is not infinite, and is therefore a satisfactory mathematical condition. So maybe I should ask you if Galaxies satisfy your multi-verse idea?
It's easy, it's just the distance between two none bonded atom nucleus, with half push, half pull electrons that equal 0 force. But I couldn't find that distance out. But it must have been posted somewhere.
Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?
I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously.
Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?
I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously.
It can be guaranteed by C, and all of your physics. Anything smaller than that and your wave becomes a straight line that cannot maintain its shape, or direction.
According to you.
And your mathematical prowess has so far been shown to be roughly zero.
As per
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2403141&postcount=1Pincho Paxton said:
So a self-admitted non-scientist, non-mathematician is now guaranteeing calculated* results.
Well claimed to be calculated, since we've seen nothing yet of those calculations.
Not doing terribly well, are you?
According to you.
And your mathematical prowess has so far been shown to be roughly zero.
As per
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2403141&postcount=1
So a self-admitted non-scientist, non-mathematician is now guaranteeing calculated* results.
Well claimed to be calculated, since we've seen nothing yet of those calculations.
Not doing terribly well, are you?
Calculated by logic.
Don't take any of this seriously if you expect quantification of things that science can not yet quantify. Even better advice which you don't need anyway since you clearly understand it, is not to be deluded by ourselves or by the deluded ideas of others. A discussion of QWC is about the questions that science cannot yet answer. When I discuss ideas from Pincho or ideas of my own I am practicing the art of discussion and sharing ideas that science cannot investigate. The ideas should have some connection to what science has arrived at, i.e. to a consensus and that is where QWC differs from Pincho Paxton.Except that according to YOU it's a calculation that you can guarantee.
So basically you're saying that comment was yet more nonsense?
I see exactly what the paradox is now: someone obviously ignorant of the subject expecting to be taken anywhere near seriously.
Pincho, give me some bio info on yourself; age, background, so I can put your ideas into that perspective.
It's not a question of what science can quantify.
PP clearly stated
Post #200.
In other words he's claimed HE has that value.
Which you know nothing about and simply make up delusions to try to convince yourself you're not a hack. If it can be done by 'all my physics' then lets see you do it.
Do you think that simply linking to your same tired prattle will magically negate the issues I raise about how PP is a hack and you're ignorant for not seeing it?
Perhaps you should take your own advice about not being deluded by oneself?
So the fact is that you can't show your calculations. And many times you've had your 'logic' disproven so why should anyone believe what you claim if you can't back it up?
Point made and taken.
I'm 46, I'm an artist who studies nature, and biology. I'm a computer programmer too. I satisfy Genius level tests, but my genius level is mostly visual which actually lowers my test results where maths are concerned. However, I used to be a maths genius too at school, but got so far ahead that I was allowed to read comics during maths class. Somehow, reading comics during maths lessons gave me the ability to see maths as images instead of numbers, and that's how my visual interpretation of nature grew. I can visualise the Aether, and how it propagates materials by taking a pattern like a wave, and understanding what it would require to create that wave as physics. So the photon becomes a vibration through a wave of bubbles, and bubbles have a wavelike membrane. My descriptions of events however require an understanding of visual imagery, and require translation back to mathematics. I should really learn how to translate my images into mathematics myself, but I am not in a situation that allows me back into college. The easiest way for me to describe myself is as a Da Vinci character, who can create results without using formulas, but I use predefined data that is available to me through other sources. C,G and tests made by scientists.
I believe that I am the imagination that is needed to form the first steps in a theory.
That value has been calculated, I just couldn't find it. I read on how it was calculated, but the result wasn't posted.
You said you could guarantee it.
Who calculated it and why? (Since you claim it as support for your nonsense).
Sigh, one more back-pedal...
Thank you for that bio. It gives me a better perspective.
No, galaxies do not play the role that you describe in my QWC view. I'll respond to the post where you bring that concept up when I get my energy level up enough to engage my thinking cap
.So you're a genius but you can't actually do any physics or maths and you don't actually know anything or answer direct questions or back up your claims or show any capacity to learn or understand.
I think you need a dictionary.
Clearly you are that stupid then. I comment that simply mindlessly linking to the same nonsense I'm criticising doesn't magically make the criticisms invalid and what do you do? Post links again. It's a possum defence, you get caught in headlights and so you lock up, mindlessly posting the same two links.
In other words you know next to nothing about science but assume that your genius makes you correct.
Used to be? And you're not now because...?
How do you know you're visualising maths as images since you've claimed that you're not a mathematician? For all you know it's just pretty pictures.
Except that you have nothing at all to indicate that there's any validity to your imagery.
Uh, wrong. Translate "back" to mathematics? You're assuming that the images are mathematically valid - on absolutely zero evidence.
But a more accurate, less-biased, description would be "deluded crackpot".
Belief is one thing: evidence is another.
I think you read my posts in an unusual way. I often don't understand how your reply has anything to do with my comment. I said that I could guarantee that the smallest Aether membrane was the distance between two none bonded atoms. That distance has been calculated along with the distances between bonded atoms. I told you why this membrane size is the smallest, because the wave of C collapses at around this point, Atoms appear at this point, G forces affect this point, Atoms are spaced around this point, Bose-Einstein collapses at this point, electrons spin inside this point, diamonds are created near to this point, water is part of this transitional point, magnetism uses this scale, the two slit experiment is effected at this scale, mass is the locking of this scale.
If there is a smaller scale membrane, it is locked inside the atom, and is pretty useless to the physics of our universe. We could simple disregard it anyway.