An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

If you watch porn, that's no skin off my nose.
If you were fair dinkum, you would find a way.

You started the thread making a claim. I'm refuting it as others have.
In fact there would probably be many many more refutations, except for the fact that forums like this attract alternative hypothesis pushers, like a magnet attracts Iron.
This is the only outlet they have, and some of our more prominent experts, have grown tired of answering them.

If you are fair dinkum, then check out the net, E-Mail Michio Kaku, Sir Martin Rees, Mitch Begalman, Neil De-Grasse Tyson...you may or may not get a reply. :shrug;

I have E-Mailed all mentioned over quandaries that I have had and have received replies off Begalman, Kaku and Hawking [more correctly, one of Hawking's minders]
THEY can then inform my stuff is "utter crap", and then you will have the pleasure of "rubbing my nose in it!"


(Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to post #79, re: my thread.

"The data available to US?" Since you are writing a "possessive declarative", I want to know by what right you claim at least "partial ownership" to the WORKS OF OTHERS?

As if you yourself are or were a participant in reaching some scientific result!

Okay...thread troll, think anything you like...just remember everything you write exposes NOTHING! You have any theories of your own? Let's see them.

I showed you mine...now you show me yours, or is your theory too tiny, like your stupid annoying "emoticons".

"I don't even know that's your real name!" Of course it is, I provided it already on one of my posts. Just look it up.

This is typical troll behavior...no matter WHAT is provided, you will deny constantly!!! It's all the arsenal you have, deny and deny and deny!

HEY>>>YOU KNOW WHAT? I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK!!! About me or what I write! Because YOU have NOTHING.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neither have you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm not under any delusion that I do have anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to paddoboy, re: your post # 81.

So...what happened to get "peer review?" I tried this, and I could not "send"...and I think sending anything to "make-believe" camera-whore so-called "physicists" is worse

than useless...Michio Kaku is an embarrassment, as well as Neil De-Grasse Tyson, and their paper credentials are worth "bum-wipe!" I would rather die than have any that

ilk read and evaluate anything I write. You forget to include that little English boy, I have forgotten his name...the one does a lot of telly while he prances and preens for

the camera...I afraid to think what his real "interests" are in! I bet it involves "leather bars".

I am as "fair dinkum" as it gets, paddoboy. (I thought that term only applied to girls?)

I have respect for Hawking...as you say, he is fair dinkum. But he exists in his own world, and has NO interest in those outside his "inner circle".


(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #83 reply.

The "quote" was NOT directed to you.

 

I have not been quote mining. I have simply been showing where your ideas do not agree with reality. There actually is no substance to what you are writting. Your ideas consist almost entirely of vague misconceptions of physics and completely made up fantasy.

Alternate theories are fine but if the alternate theory directly goes against reality it is not a theory it is gibberish.

The reason obviously is that you do not realize your ideas are delusional - that is kind of the defintion of delusional. You think on that.

 

Nothing wrong with quote mining anyway. We all do it.
I well remember how undefined would use that piss weak attack style against me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reply to origin, re: quote mining.

I see that "trolling" is your stock-in-trade from numerous other "threads"...your nouns consist of "gibberish", "fantasy", "delusional". Do you understand physics at all?

Put your crap on someone else's thread.

 

I use more nouns than that, heck I even occasionally throw in a verb or an adjective.

Yes.

I am sorry that you feel that way, but still I am glad that I helped to put at least a bit of correct 'crap' in your head, specifically the realization that the speed of light can be slower in different mediums such as water.

 

In reply to #89, re: ?

You did NOT put anything in my head, least of all the conclusions of an observation. The "SPEED" of light is NOT>>>NOT, a "velocity" designation, it is a VALUE of COSISTANCY.

YOU want proof??? The "proof" is known and accepted because the results are ALWAYS THE SAME. "c" remains "c".

......

The "photon energy" (that is the key noun, energy) is being distributed (refer to Lorentz factors) thru-out the media, water. The "diffusion" process IS NOT, NOT instantaneous!

The "diffusion" process ( also a known constant) does NOT occur at a relativistic "speed"...the light ITSELF has not been "slowed" in regard to ITSELF. c remained c.

You are equating an observational "effect" as "the speed of light slowed". No...it did not. The diffusion process in the media makes light "appear" to slow, when in

reality light remained at a constant.

......

You need/want more? Okay. The light from a source exits the water, and enters a vacuum...and the speed of light is still "c". INSTANTLY. The ENERGY "value" has been reduced,

not the factor of "c", light-speed.

......

I am NOT going to engage in theoretical physics "Ping-Pong" with you! I write theories concerning ab initio "causations"...NOT "frame-dragging" observational effects of

watching a flashlight beam thru bicycle wheel spokes!!!

......

Your condescending attitude of how much "you have tried to help me" with your "Chicken McNuggets" of wisdom and proofs were meant to show to other readers

how "smart you are" and how "foolish and delusional I am"...do you really think anyone other than a juvenile will believe and be impressed with "how much you can look up?"

......

"You're sorry I feel that way?"...bullsh!t. How I feel or do not feel is completely subjective, and you have NOTHING to do with my "feelings".



(Thanks for reading, and being an utterly clueless ass with your responses)

 

Jumping up and down, ranting and wavying your arms to show everyone that you deny observable and measurable facts is a really strange thing to do.

Being called a clueless ass by a moronic and uneducable dolt is rather ironic.

 

In reply to James R., re: your #90 post.

Cheers! In response to your questions...the answers are already on my replies, with the exception of "quantum-gravity", and yes, it answers to both rotation and orbit.

It's not necessary for you to respond...you lost me with "conspiracy". Just re-read my #63 post.

I have no wish to engage in pointless arguments with anyone.

(p.s....define "terms?" If the bulk of my replies has not "defined" them in the manner in which I use them, then explanations will not help)



(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to origin, re: your #92 reply.

"Wavying?" How about "waving" instead, as in "waving good-bye". Your response is that of a petulant child. Later, dud.

 

Bye-bye, and good luck.

 

When we have people using typographical/spelling errors as a means of insulting rebuffs, it just shows they lack knowledge in the science discussion taking place.
But you can relax somewhat...you aint the first to show your true colours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All you have shown is that you for some reason would rather live in igorance that learn what a highschool student has learned in their first science class.

The invariance of c has noting to do with the speed of light being slower in different mediums, dolt.

You are writtng but only gibberish is coming out. The speed of light is slower in water than it is in a vacuum. This is true, pretending it is not true is stupid.

You are writtng but only gibberish is coming out. The speed of light is slower in water than it is in a vacuum. This is true, pretending it is not true is stupid.

When the light is in the water the speed of light is slower than c and when it exits the water and enter a vacuum the speed is c. You have just stated my point that you say is not true. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

No kidding, you couldn't engage in a discussion about theoretical physics if your life depended on it.

You don't write theories, you write child like misconceptions of the most basic high school level science and feel proud of yourself, it's embarrassiing.

And sadly these small nuggets are too much for you. I do not think I am all that smart - it just appears that way comparred to you, i suppose.

No one should be impressed with what I can look up, but by supplying supporting evidence there will be no doubt that what you are saying is completely wrong and nothing more than silly uninformed drivel.

Thanks for showing everyone that you are an whinny asshole who would rather cling to his idiotic misconceptions and look like an idiot rather than admit they are wrong.

Enjoy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reply to James R., regarding your #60 reply.

No, my knowledge of history is not "muddled"...rather, your interpretation of what constitutes proper theory is "muddled". There were NO electromagnetic "theories" of any

significant note prior to Einstein's. Observations of "effects" are not theory...Einstein wrote his first paper at 16 on this very topic of electromagnetic theory.

.....

I used the "movement" of water molecules as an example of camparison values only with regard to individual "photon" movement(s). You are parsing semantics and taking

my words out of context and meaning, as if "you know more about this" than I do...YOU DO NOT.

......

"I haven't seen your first Topic"...then why don't you READ IT FIRST! Before you make puerile comments of dismissal!

......

I must "prove" something? Like what? I don't have any need for "onus of proof", back or front! I wrote an "Alternative Theory"...which part of "alternative theory" do you

not understand? Someone, somewhere, at some point will understand what I wrote. This why I "post", not to argue or impress "thread trolls" who think they are clever.

......

I hope at some point you will try to impress someone other than myself how "clever " you are...you are not the "Noel Coward" of physics you think you are!

(please never write to me again...you cannot understand anything I write, so why comment?)

 

Gerry, you cannot call someone a clueless ass, then report them for calling you a whiney ass...

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: your # 96 reply.

Really? You saw some form of "science debate" in involved in origin's # 92 "reply?" Where?

You want to jump-in and "tag-team" me for responding to nothing more than personal insults on my own thread? "True colors?" Since when is pointing out a typo made because

origin can't hurl insults fast enough SCIENCE?

I show my "true colors" with everything I write, and so do you! I notice that in EVERY thread you care to respond to, you always manage to "work in" references to BB theory

at some point with any other Topic! You have your agenda, and I have mine...but mine is always "upfront", whereas you always use your responses to expound on BB as part

of a supposedly "honest" response....are you even aware of how often you do this?

.....

Paddoboy, you wrote a couple of good replies to me that did not involve sarcasm and personal assaults, so I know you can form proper "debate" replies.

Why not continue that way?


(Thanks for reading!)