Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 126 of 126

Thread: Gravity is Energy moving towards lower Energy

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You mean you are a consumer in a mental ward who is trusted to salt and pepper the roast beef?
    No, it means I have published work and I engage in paid research. For example, there are things in space I've been involved in the development of.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The rest of it sounds like a babbling rant extracted from an AA meeting. What did you do get drunk and nail someone's granny?
    No, it's called being able to explain oneself. Notice how I didn't swear or wish horrible things on you, unlike your comments to me. As your 2 week holiday shows, that kind of immature mentality has no place here.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Neither you or Alex geve a direct answer to that direct question.
    Considering you've been asked to provide some justification for your claims and you've ignored said requests you're again hardly taking the high ground on that regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    General relativity, by that token, states only the effect. The effect "bending of space and time by massive objects" is not, and cannot be, the cause if for no other reasoning than it is the effect. Dark matter sucks. BOTH of you appear to be about that dense. Relativity is not a complete theory. A complete theory includes BOTH cause and effect. Stop sidestepping that missing component.
    GR is known not to be an entirely self coherent model for much the same reason as QED is also known to not be entirely self consistent, they have issues with high energy regimes and leave to pesky infinite couplings. But the reason we know that is because people constructed quantitative coherent descriptions of the principles and followed them to their conclusions. Without the details all the buzzwords in the world can't get you to a viable theory.

    Again, you can't spout the stuff I first called you a poe for and then complain about the lack of completeness in a mainstream model without being very hypocritical. At least GR lets us correctly and precisely describe the dynamics of gravitational systems, leading to such vital pieces of technology like the GPS network. If you gutted GR of all but a few buzzwords it'd be worthless, just like that buzzword extravaganza I called you a poe for saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Alex, when YOU decide to stop hitting and waving your hands in an otherwise peaceful persons' faces as though you are 3 years old, we can have a meaningful discussion.
    Wow, I do hope you're being a poe again, in that you're deliberately being ironic and hypocritical because otherwise you've just tried to present yourself as a 'peaceful person' after wishing I get tortured to death!

    Come on, you seriously can't have missed the hypocrisy in that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You might actually be able to understand science and earn a paycheck by other means than working as a mental patient on work therapy in a kitchen.

    Most shrinks won't try Nietzsche philosophy, but if you were obsessively toilet trained, it has an affect on you that will stay with you for life UNLESS you develop your second nature. Practice the opposite toilet habits you were forced into likely at age 1. After only a few months of rejecting what your parent shoved upon you, you'll be able to see the other person's perspective with a bit more imagination, as opposed to delusions of grandeur. I've seen people who have come out of mental institutions where the condescending staff convinced them they were very good at artistry. Anyone else could see that their "good art" is only scribbles and usually the product of a dark, unhappy mind. Get help, dude or learn to help yourself.
    Are you projecting or just trolling?

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Chemist speaking? Are you familiar with lobelar "3d" orbital philosophy (theory)? If not, (back to the library) See "Organic Chemistry" by G. Marc Loudon 3d ed. Eventually we can readdress that earlier post I directed at Pincho concerning the fine structure constant from the aspect of figurate numeration, only using a complex modification to the tetrahedron variety. It actually balances the force with that particular wave-particle geometry by producing the imbalance in favor of mass instead of space, as conventional lobelar theory does.
    I happen to be working on a problem in quantum chemistry at the moment. If you think what you've been spouting is anything close to the modelling power of mainstream quantum chemistry you're very much mistaken. Saying "Before I show you the math I'll show you an illustration" sounds like a cop out. Why wait till you have time to draw lots of pictures when you could just type out the relevant equations you've worked with right now? After all, if you're up to speed on it all you can just type it out off the top of your heard, right? Something tells me you can't.

    Besides, you have 2 weeks before you can post again. Why not spend that time doing all the maths in a .txt file so you can post it immediately when you get back?

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    No, it means I have published work and I engage in paid research. For example, there are things in space I've been involved in the development of.

    No, it's called being able to explain oneself. Notice how I didn't swear or wish horrible things on you, unlike your comments to me. As your 2 week holiday shows, that kind of immature mentality has no place here.

    Considering you've been asked to provide some justification for your claims and you've ignored said requests you're again hardly taking the high ground on that regard.

    GR is known not to be an entirely self coherent model for much the same reason as QED is also known to not be entirely self consistent, they have issues with high energy regimes and leave to pesky infinite couplings. But the reason we know that is because people constructed quantitative coherent descriptions of the principles and followed them to their conclusions. Without the details all the buzzwords in the world can't get you to a viable theory.

    I happen to be working on a problem in quantum chemistry at the moment. If you think what you've been spouting is anything close to the modelling power of mainstream quantum chemistry you're very much mistaken. Saying "Before I show you the math I'll show you an illustration" sounds like a cop out. Why wait till you have time to draw lots of pictures when you could just type out the relevant equations you've worked with right now? After all, if you're up to speed on it all you can just type it out off the top of your heard, right? Something tells me you can't.
    You are a professional who does quantum chemistry research, and gets paid for it. By solving the Schrodinger equation for the electric charges of atoms, one obtains valence bands, conduction bands, electronic shells, heat conduction and electrical conduction properties of materials. If quantum theorists didn't need wave functions to describe all of these properties, then wave functions would go away. Yet QM theorists retain wave functions because they describe nature very well.

    Question: Is it unreasonable to think that wave function are the real face of nature?

  3. #123
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    17
    Question: Is it unreasonable to think that wave function are the real face of nature?
    The Bible says "pre-universe stuff, where space and energy are one thing, has a quiver of waves moving through it. These presumably have decayed into the waves in the arm of a spiral galaxy, weather patterns and even your daily eating habits. I say, What better way to measure a wave than with a wave function.

  4. #124
    Arguing with a crank - useless AlexG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,704
    Quote Originally Posted by peters View Post
    The Bible says "pre-universe stuff, where space and energy are one thing, has a quiver of waves moving through it. .
    Well, you've put it in quotes, so could you please be specific about where you think this little piece of bullshit exists?

  5. #125
    I'm guessing it comes from a bible fan fiction site.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Mazulu View Post
    Question: Is it unreasonable to think that wave function are the real face of nature?
    Yes I believe it us unreasonable. You keep repeating the same questions over and over without clarifying. If you mean that can we use the wave function to answer any question about nature the answer is: of course not!

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Similar Threads

  1. By norgeboy in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-11-12, 03:17 PM
    Replies: 4
  2. By Roman in forum Earth Science
    Last Post: 12-06-11, 02:42 AM
    Replies: 35
  3. By wellwisher in forum Biology & Genetics
    Last Post: 02-20-11, 07:05 PM
    Replies: 27
  4. By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 03-11-08, 05:06 AM
    Replies: 8

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •