:eek:

What the heck am I supposed to do with this???

Anthropic Principle and the Theory of Everything (http://www.geocities.com/naturescience)

apply the 100th law which is to lean over switch the computer off and get some sleep.:D

Originally posted by island
:eek:

What the heck am I supposed to do with this???

Anthropic Principle and the Theory of Everything (http://www.geocities.com/naturescience)

you are not supposed to do anything with it

The -1th Law

This guy even writes with a lisp. :D

Originally posted by island
:eek:

What the heck am I supposed to do with this???

Anthropic Principle and the Theory of Everything (http://www.geocities.com/naturescience)

Report it to www.crank.net

Thanks for asking.

I'm glad that you geniuses know so much more than the physicists at the moderated research group where the articles originally appeared. You should tell John Baez and the rest of the cutting edge theoretical gang how smart you all are. I'm sure that they'd be impressed. No... wait... no they wouldn't... they'd tell you that you're a bunch of clue-less knowitalls, but I don't know why I should have expected more.

Thanks for nothin

Originally posted by thed
Report it to www.crank.net

Thanks for asking.

Thats a great website Thed!

There's a psychotic physicist listed somewhere on CrankDotNet that you should definitely check out.

His name is George Hammond, and he's been proving the existence of God via Relativity for years. He's probably the most notorious crackpot to ever hit the net.

Another one is... "Archie The Pot Scrubber"... aka, Archimedes Plutonium. He's not a phyicist, and rumor has it that he originally gained access to the net while he was working as a janitor at Dartmouth, back when the net was mainly built around usenet for scientists to share information.

He caused quite a commotion at the time.

Has MacM gotten into that website yet?

:D Only messin buddy!

FYI: The -1th law, (including the lisp), is the next logical step up the thermodynamic ladder, since it supercedes the "zeroth" law that falls out of it, which was obviously derived by another speach impedimented "crank"... ;)

Originally posted by island
I'm glad that you geniuses know so much more than the physicists at the moderated research group where the articles originally appeared. You should tell John Baez and the rest of the cutting edge theoretical gang how smart you all are. I'm sure that they'd be impressed. No... wait... no they wouldn't... they'd tell you that you're a bunch of clue-less knowitalls, but I don't know why I should have expected more.

Thanks for nothin

Notes that you are using Argument from Authority as Baez does not appear to particpate in the threads you list. If you care to prove otherwise I'm happy to listen and eat humble pie. Ideally, show me where Baez agrees with you rather than applying the Crackpot Index.

Rather, you reply to yourself in the third person in those threads. First sign of a nutter.

His name is George Hammond, and he's been proving the existence of God via Relativity for years. He's probably the most notorious crackpot to ever hit the net.

More notorious is A. Abian and Ali Stolimar. Even worse was N. Leider and the madmen of alt.religion and alt.fan.art-bell. Not to mention Brother Blue. though B:: B:: was sane. Been doing Usenet for 10+ years, next.

Another one is... "Archie The Pot Scrubber"... aka, Archimedes Plutonium.

Aka Ludwig Plutonium, a dishwasher at Dartmouth.edu. He may have been ousted by Danny J. Min, usenets most failed prophet.

Jack Sarfatti (http://www.well.com/~sarfatti/). but don't mention Dave Tholen, honorary KOTM.

I'm only saying they don't allow unsubstantiated speculation or crackpotty ideas in that forum. Every post is reviewed by John or one of the other physicists before they approve it, and while they don't always catch everything, they do a pretty damned good job and if you look at my first post to the Anthropic Principle thread, then you will find out WHY my observation is not outrageous.


My point about "authority" was centered around the fact that one may "THINK" that they can argue against my point, but you can't call it "overly speculative" nor can you call it the work of a crackpot, so if you don't realize that, then you are very obviously C L U E L E S S and so I don't need to waste my time on you.

The whole argument centers on the fact that the anti-particle (the "hole") leaves a hole that affects vacuum expansion as the gravitational effect of real particle pair production offsets the increase in tension.

Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another fermion type that has exactly the same mass, and therefore no priori distinction between matter and anti-matter.

Dirac's "Sea of Electrons" was dismissed as implausible for this reason, but the opposite value of all other charges (quantum numbers), indicates that the asymmetry between the two classes of particles is due to the fact that the anti-particle has -rho and negative mass, until it becomes a real particle.




This simple little observation changes EVERYTHING