What is Quantum Wave Cosmology discussion thread

[Dywyddyr]

I think you read my posts in an unusual way.

Really?

but so far the only calculation I can fully guarantee is the smallest membrane size.

The only calculation YOU can fully guarantee... Right there, post #200.
Maybe you have problems with English, as well as science, mathematics and reality.

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.

Nope, you clearly stated you could guarantee the calculation.

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.

And that was yet another example of totally meaningless bullshit.

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.

The way you disregard all of science?

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Really?

The only calculation YOU can fully guarantee... Right there, post #200.
Maybe you have problems with English, as well as science, mathematics and reality.


Nope, you clearly stated you could guarantee the calculation.


And that was yet another example of totally meaningless bullshit.


The way you disregard all of science?

No I said that I could guarantee that the calculation is the smallest membrane size, not that I had calculated it myself. Like I can guarantee that 1+1 = 2 but I didn't invent maths.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No I said that I could guarantee that the calculation is the smallest membrane size, not that I had calculated it myself.

I quoted your post directly.
You claimed you could guarantee the calculation. Where have I said that you made the calculation?
How can you guarantee a calculation if you're as mathematically inept as you appear to be?
And (given your ineptitude) how do know that it has anything at all to do "membrane size"?
Especially as you're now claiming that you've lost the reference.

Like I can guarantee that 1+1 = 2 but I didn't invent maths.

But you can't guarantee that 1+1=2. You take it on faith.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I quoted your post directly.
You claimed you could guarantee the calculation. Where have I said that you made the calculation?
How can you guarantee a calculation if you're as mathematically inept as you appear to be?
And (given your ineptitude) how do know that it has anything at all to do "membrane size"?
Especially as you're now claiming that you've lost the reference.

But I never quoted the calculation, I quoted the distance between two none bonded atoms. I gave the none mathematical version of events which is just the same as saying the value, especially accurate being as mathematical distances are always approximates. The same as C went through a lot of approximated stages at one time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But I never quoted the calculation, I quoted the distance between two none bonded atoms.

I gave the none mathematical version of events which is just the same as saying the value.

Wrong again.
You're claiming to be able guarantee something (which you can't show us) to support something else (which makes no sense).

 

[quantum_wave]

Pincho, you have to learn how important even the simplest quantification of a theory is. You are implying that there is some minimimal size or distance in your theory and yet you can't quantify it and you have lost the link?

I'm with Dy on this point and your best outcome is to acknowledge Dy's comments are appropriate. You can use my thread to withdraw the suggestion that you have any quantification at all, or produce it.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Wrong again.
You're claiming to be able guarantee something (which you can't show us) to support something else (which makes no sense).

Well then you are not able to understand it. I need not have to explain each part as an individual interpretation to each different mind set. I might have to come up with 6 billion different explanations of the same thing.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well then you are not able to understand it.

Quite true. I always have problems understanding nonsense.

I need not have to explain each part as an individual interpretation to each different mind set.

Not "each different mindset" no, but explaining yourself clearly to others is a sine qua non for the advancement of science (or any discipline).
If only you think your explanations make sense then they aren't explanations at all, are they?

I might have to come up with 6 billion different explanations of the same thing.

And none of them would make sense. Quite a talent you have.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, you have to learn how important even the simplest quantification of a theory is. You are implying that there is some minimimal size or distance in your theory and yet you can't quantify it and you have lost the link?

I'm with Dy on this point and your best outcome is to acknowledge Dy's comments are appropriate. You can use my thread to withdraw the suggestion that you have any quantification at all, or produce it.

It's important to measure the size of none bonded atoms, as the C wave, and relativity are part of this distance per metre. When I have this distance, I will have the wave formula. Atoms need to sit in the centre of Aether because the forces around them are similar to gravity, or if you wish to use your bended space analogy, it is the atoms bending space between each other. In actual fact it is a membrane, but bent space, and membranes have similar calculations. They both have a concave aspect with a peak in the middle between the two atoms. My peak is a membrane, and it propagates the photon wave. What link is it that I am supposed to have lost?

 

[Dywyddyr]

In actual fact it is a membrane, but bent space, and membranes have similar calculations.

Don't tell me: this another statement you can't back up.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Don't tell me: this another statement you can't back up.

I don't need to it is the same 3D model.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't need to

Of course you do. You've claimed the calculations are similar: prove it.

it is the same 3D model.

That's a supposition.
And a 3D model isn't a calculation.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Of course you do. You've claimed the calculations are similar: prove it.


That's a supposition.
And a 3D model isn't a calculation.

A 3D model is made from vectors, and vectors are curve calculations, and a curve between atoms as a membrane, is the same as a curve between atoms of space bent between the atoms. There is no difference. In a sphere made from a substance there is more substance in the middle of the sphere because that is the largest radius to contain the substance. Larger substance has more mass, and mass holds the atom in the centre. the edges of a sphere reduce in mass due to distance from surface containing less substance. That is a curve value, and that is the same curve value as a bend in space containing an atom at its centre. That is why the none bonded atoms sit at the centre of an Aether bubble, and that is why the distance between none bonded atoms is the scale of the membrane.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A 3D model is made from vectors, and vectors are curve calculations

BUT a 3D model can be made without doing the calculations. Just slap clay together until it looks like what you want. Ever seen a vase? It's a 3D object with lots of curves. Was it calculated?

and a curve between atoms as a membrane, is the same as a curve between atoms of space bent between the atoms. There is no difference.

But you can't prove it. No calculations, not even a 3D model. Just your word for it.

In a sphere made from a substance there is more substance in the middle of the sphere because that is the largest radius to contain the substance.

What?
Go on, admit it. English isn't your native language is it?

Larger substance has more mass, and mass holds the atom in the centre. the edges of a sphere reduce in mass due to distance from surface containing less substance. That is a curve value, and that is the same curve value as a bend in space containing an atom at its centre. That is why the none bonded atoms sit at the centre of an Aether bubble, and that is why the distance between none bonded atoms is the scale of the membrane.

And every single sentence of that was specious nonsensical bullshit.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

BUT a 3D model can be made without doing the calculations. Just slap clay together until it looks like what you want. Ever seen a vase? It's a 3D object with lots of curves. Was it calculated?


But you can't prove it. No calculations, not even a 3D model. Just your word for it.


What?
Go on, admit it. English isn't your native language is it?


And every single sentence of that was specious nonsensical bullshit.

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.

Which shows, once more, your complete failure to connect with the real world.
You make claims that you can't support.
Then you back-track and claim that's not exactly what you meant, and then when the sheer nonsense of your position strikes you, you decide it's a failure on the part of others.
Typical crank.
You have displayed NO logic and NO understanding, yet you have the sheer idiocy to claim it's my failure?

Effectively you're saying "I'm right, I've got sod all to support my view except for nonsensical technobabble, and if you don't agree it's your own fault".
Clever.


Not.
You're just one in a long line of deluded half-wits. When you've gone there'll be others. Just as deluded, just as adamant in their sustained ignorance. If we're really lucky they'll come up with something that's actually new to be deluded about.

 

[quantum_wave]

I'm sorry but I don't have to cater for you lack of logical understanding.

Pincho, stick to the topic. The topic of my thread is QWC. Comparing QWC to someone else's ideas can help describe what QWC is about, hence our discussions here. Thanks.

Please take the discussion of your ideas to your own threads when they don't relate to a comparison with the thread topic. I still owe you a couple of responses here which I will get to.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Which shows, once more, your complete failure to connect with the real world.
You make claims that you can't support.
Then you back-track and claim that's not exactly what you meant, and then when the sheer nonsense of your position strikes you, you decide it's a failure on the part of others.
Typical crank.
You have displayed NO logic and NO understanding, yet you have the sheer idiocy to claim it's my failure?

Effectively you're saying "I'm right, I've got sod all to support my view except for nonsensical technobabble, and if you don't agree it's your own fault".
Clever.


Not.
You're just one in a long line of deluded half-wits. When you've gone there'll be others. Just as deluded, just as adamant in their sustained ignorance. If we're really lucky they'll come up with something that's actually new to be deluded about.

I never backtracked, I tried to explain things to you in a different way. I have always stuck with the same principal. You just keep changing what I am saying, your English is terrible.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho, stick to the topic. The topic of my thread is QWC. Comparing QWC to someone else's ideas can help describe what QWC is about, hence our discussions here. Thanks.

Please take the discussion of your ideas to your own threads when they don't relate to a comparison with the thread topic. I still owe you a couple of responses here which I will get to.

My initial reposes were to you own questions, which I didn't really think were relevant, like more about myself. Anyway, I am sorry for going off topic based on being directed to do so.

 

[quantum_wave]

My initial reposes were to you own questions, which I didn't really think were relevant, like more about myself. Anyway, I am sorry for going off topic based on being directed to do so.

Let's look closely at that statement:

"My initial responses were to your own questions". Is that what you meant?

"Which I didn't rreally think were relevant, ...". Are you saying that you don't think your responses were relavent to the questions I posed?

And when you say, "like more about myself", do you mean that your answers were about your theory instead of about the connection that my questions might have had to QWC?

Anyway, picking peoples minds is part of the art of discussion. Repond if you like. But please keep discussion of your theory in context with QWC. If you don't know what QWC is then find out.