An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

bingo...
some of us already know from his nonsense on another forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #177 post.

It would not matter if there were 5k on this site laying claim to a ToE! I do not and never had and never will have a ToE...I think even the idea of ToE is absurd! Why do you insist

that I'm "claiming" a "ToE" whenever you criticize anything I write? For that matter you and many others exhibit a mind-set of "shop-keeper" mentality, in that "if it didn't come

from Hawking or Wilczek et. al, it doesn't mean shit!" I wrote and defended my ideas or concepts or whatever you chose to call them...and all I can receive as "feedback" is

meaningless comments from "trolls" whose only agenda is character assassination, because they have nothing else!

.....

Hey paddo...does everyone who writes a concept fall into the "delusions of grandeur" category, or just me? Is this all you have in terms of assessments of value?

You keep harping on "peer review" as if it were the "be all and end all of all things", and it isn't.

First, someone capable of making an assessment would have to READ IT...and as far as I know, this has yet to occur. Then others would also have to assess the concepts, to see

if they are at least "plausible" and worth further examination...and this has yet to happen, and likely never will.

I cannot force anyone to "read my stuff and give it a fair assessment".

(In what manner have I "derided" the "scientific method", paddo? Because that's "how you see it?" It is NOT "how I see it".)

As far as "leave theory to me" (with regard to my own concepts) is concerned, I stand with my comment. A "troll" or a legion of "trolls" who rant and rave and finally resort

to calling me a "delusional asshole" have not formed an effective rebuttal, all they have "proved" is that they are "TROLLS".

......

Until someone writes THEIR OWN WORK, that can "prove me wrong"...Then yes, I am better at theory and no, they are not in my league!



(Thanks for reading!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this actually occurred decades before you even existed.
comical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You did not write and defend your ideas.
You wrote some drivel about actualization and potential which is meaningless and has nothing to do with physics, and basically have said you will not defend your ideas.

It is really bizarre how you say one thing and demonstrate the opposite. That has become a reoccuring theme in your posts.

You think Einstein is always right - but you proclaim much of what he discovered is false. Weird!

You say you have defended your ideas - but you refuse to even discuss your ideas beyond stating them. Weird!

What a stupid statement! Your idea is that the potential for gravity is always there you just can't detect it. You cannot prove that is wrong.
How about this idea, there are invisible nightingales that distort space where ever there is mass present. Prove that is wrong.

Your abilities to perform theoretical physics appear to be on par with a of 16 year old kid, with a bong and too much time on his hands!



(thanks for the laughs)

 

you mean like a contradicting hypocrite with dementia ?

 

Ah, now I know.

 

In reply to origin, re: your# 183 post.

How very droll you are! It's funny you would write my ideas and theories are "delusional" and "worthless drivel" with no way to "prove anything!"

I can easily make the same assertion with "BB" theory! There is not now and never will be ANY way to prove such completely suppositional drivel! The entire "Universe" came from a

particle that exceeds Plank's Constant! (just who is "violating" the "rules" now?)

......

Modern "QM" of the past 50yrs. is completely unprovable suppositional rubbish supported by calculations inherently designed to "make the theory work".



(Thanks for reading!)...also, I have never written anything that "denies" A.E.

 

The onus of proof [more correctly evidence] is on you.
You are claiming to have an alternative hypothesis, that better fits observational and experimental data then incumbent models.

No you cannot...not with any sensibility, logically or scientifically anyway.
Plus of course, there is no proof with regards to scientific theories.

......

QM has a plethora of evidence supporting it. Ridiculious claims to the contrary, are just that.

Obviously you have.

 

Is the statement that "a particle that exceeds Plank's constant" suppose to mean something?

That is either a lie or you just have no idea what Einstein's theories are saying.

 

In reply to origin, re: your #189 post.

"A particle that exceeds Plank's Constant?"...simple. It became fashionable apprx. 40yrs. ago to describe the "BB" particle as "infinitely dense" and "infinitely small". In fact, a "particle"

state so small there would exist no way to measure or detect it...!

This means it would, by it's intrinsic assigned "values" it would defy "Planck's Constant" as "definable matter".

.....

I would have thought someone like yourself with massive storehouse of knowledge would instinctively "know" what I mean with reference to "Planck".

.....

Would you please "show me" where I have denied Einstein?

The only point of variation between myself and A.E. is with regard to "packets of energy" that "transit from a source".

As far as "Relativity" is concerned...the mandate is fully preserved in all respects with regard to my "theories" or "concepts". Why you say I "deny" and "support" A.E. at the same time

is baffling to me!

......

Why do you keep "pounding nails" with regard to this thread? You seem to have no agenda at all, other than to write "you're delusional!"



(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to origin, re: your #188 reply.

"QM has a plethora of evidence supporting"....what?

The evidence QM posits exists only as "possibilities", NOT as facts. "BB" is absolute conjecture. Period.


(Thanks for reading!)

 

No, that's not the case. Firstly it would be the Planck volume/quantum region, is simply the region we are unable to observe and/or detect with current technology.
We call that a Singularity, which needs not be infinite in any extent at all, but may lead to infinite quantities.
A possible physical singularity as opposed to a mathematical one.
At least that is the way I see it, and if origin or another informed reputable expert would like to comment on that, I welcome your input.

Yes, you deny Albert.

Your posts themselves say they support Einstein, but the message you present does not. :shrug:
I'm confused also.

I don't believe we will ever have some one come to a science forum, to rewrite cosmology or even a small part of it.'
For many reasons. Despite claims to the contrary.

 

Saying that a particle exceeds \(6.62606957 \times 10^{-34} m^2 kg / s\) is quite simply gibberish. Typically you never admit you have made a mistake so it will be interesting to see if you stick with this nonesense.

I did not instinctively know about Planck I had to learn about the man and his discoveries.

You said:

Then you say:

So you have never disagreed with Einstein's theories except when you disagreed with Einstein's theories. Are just trying to be funny.:shrug:

 

No....no answers from me with smart-ass childish emoticons attached. Save it for someone else.

 

So once again he is shown that he is wrong and instead of addressing the issue he dodges it. Immagine my surprise!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So... is that an inability to answer, a desire not to answer in attempt to save face, a refusal to answer for reasons of pride, or something else entirely?