The conference hall debate!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by theorist-constant12345, Feb 20, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 24 of 28
  1. Daecon

    Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Whereas everyone else thinks it's wrong.

    The only difference is, they have science to back them up. You don't.
     
    Daecon, Feb 24, 2015
    #461

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    How do you convince me that you're just not pulling my leg?

    I looked at a prvious thread of your on algebra and it was pretty unbelievable.
     
    Beer w/Straw, Feb 24, 2015
    #462

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru

    Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    You are seeing "light" as the radiation in the visible light spectrum that hits your retina... it's pretty damn simple, and has been scientifically PROVEN time and again... unless you can show how years of scientific research is wrong, then all you have is a theory, and a pretty nutty one at that.
     
    Kittamaru, Feb 24, 2015
    #463

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy

    paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Nope, it's not a theory by any stretch of the Imagination. I wouldn't even call it an hypothesis....well, OK, an hypothesis, but certainly not a scientific hypothesis! It's not even pseudoscience. Fairy tale?? Maybe, but I don't want to upset the children!
     
    paddoboy, Feb 24, 2015
    #464
  8. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I think it's more like sci-fi.
     
    Beer w/Straw, Feb 24, 2015
    #465
  9. zgmc

    zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
    Fantasy might be more like it.
     
    zgmc, Feb 24, 2015
    #466
  10. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Well, this thread is all about semantics, isn't it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Beer w/Straw, Feb 24, 2015
    #467
    zgmc likes this.
  11. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    The reason you cannot answer is simple ignorance. You will be able to answer a lot of your own questions once you understand a little more physics.

    As an example, the question "2 - (-2)" was once a paradox to you. This does not mean that it is a difficult problem, just that you did not understand basic math. Now you understand it a little better. You may get to that point with physics as well.
    You are as much a tiger as you are a physicist.
    There are very easy ways to know, through education.
     
    billvon, Feb 24, 2015
    #468
  12. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    theorist-constant12345:

    You have moved on an introduced new irrelevancies rather than dealing with the topic we were originally discussing.

    I previously asked you to explain what this kind of statement means.

    As far as I can tell, it's meaningless blather. Even you can't explain it, and they're your words. You're wasting my time.

    It is clear that you don't know what the word "frequency" means, or the word "spectrum". If you did, you wouldn't make this kind of self-contradictory statement. You're wasting my time.

    More blather. Surely you must be trolling.

    From a distance, many sources of light are effectively point sources that emit in all directions. It is both logical and not surprising that you can see some light emitted from something like the Sun or a light blub, both of which emit light in all directions.

    Why is it dark when you close your eyes?

    Some sunlight filters through cloud from above. Some is reflected onto the bottom of the cloud from below. (Clouds can also be lit by sources of light on the ground.) Also, the air scatters sunlight. That is why the sky looks blue.

    When you see a "ray" of sunlight through a break in the clouds, what you're actually seeing is sunlight reflected from water or dust in the atmosphere where the "ray" is. Some of that reflected light happens to travel towards your eyes, so you see it.

    I said I'd ignore interference effects for now, because they are beyond you. Any light you see in the shadow of an object has been reflected from something else. From example, turn on the light in a bedroom and have the corridor outside dark. Light spills out the door of the room. Outside the straight-line shadow of the door edges (in the corridor), the floor is dark. Not completely dark though! Why not? Not because light from the room turned the corner, but because some of the light from the room went out, reflected off floor, ceiling, walls, objects in the corridor etc. and then off the floor in the "shadow" region and to your eyes.

    You have to be careful when you do these kinds of experiments to eliminate "stray" reflections. Otherwise, you can get the wrong idea.

    Mind you, I thought it would be fairly obvious to most people that light travels in straight lines and doesn't turn corners.

    Meaningless.

    A distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

    Nonsense piled on nonsense.

    Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

    No.

    It's nothing of the kind.

    Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

    This is pure crap, and you know it.

    Show me the derivation of your "process formula", or admit you are a troll.

    Meaningless blather.
     
    James R, Feb 24, 2015
    #469
  13. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Obfuscate
     
    Ophiolite, Feb 24, 2015
    #470
  14. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    How can I convince you/ with my spag I probably never will. I am not a mathematician or neither am I a scientist, I have no need to pull legs. You understand my idea, if you know science you yourself can convince you by looking at the fundamentals.
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #471
  15. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    No, youre immersed in the light, you are already are connected to the emission, you see an object that reflects light because the surface of the object is different to the emission constant
    Hi James, earlier on in the thread I explained the words i need to use are already in use such has immersed, submerged all being related to liquids,
    it is not me explaining badly , it is the words that are confusing you all that I am trying to use to explain, because they mean something else but I can only use them as a comparison without making up new words, new words that have no definition I would have to invent.

    I will try you are surrounded by the light rather than immersed, and you are connected to the light when surrounded by the light.
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #472
  16. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    • 10 warning points for posting meaningless nonsense and wasting everybody's time
    My process formula F=P/ab/t=f

    where F is the covariance force and P is the pressure applied from the force that is equal to the spectral magnitude frequency, (a) being the covariance xyz, and (b) being the object with constant exchange rate value and where t is time and f is frequency.
    This is pure crap, and you know it.

    The derivation of the process formula is from my brain, using my brain and observing what I am witnessing.

    There is no other sources because it is new.
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #473
  17. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    countable, the probability mass function fX(x) is zero for all but a countable number of values of x.
    It may be meaningless blather, I am simply trying to direct science to what I perceive by my observations , the mass function and explantion of the mass function seemed the example I needed to explain.

    X been a variable matter constant , variable by properties of the matter, and the light in space being of a mixture with a un-countable value xyz that means zero according to the mass density function.
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #474
  18. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    My process formula F=P/ab/t=f

    where F is the covariance force and P is the pressure applied from the force that is equal to the spectral magnitude frequency, (a) being the covariance xyz, and (b) being the object with constant exchange rate value and where t is time and f is frequency.
    This is pure crap, and you know it.

    Does anyone deny that the force of the light makes the radiation pressure by (a) being light and (b) being a surface, (a) applying the force and (b) opposing the force?
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #475
  19. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    F=P/ab

    divided by ab might not be the correct denotation, a combination of ab by a timing rate = P

    any maxwells on care to help out?
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #476
  20. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    This is how I see the process, please tell me where I see it wrong.

    Light starts from the Sun, travels an isotropic velocity at the speed of 299792458 m/s known as (c).

    Momentum (p) whilst the light is un-interfered with in space is equal to (P) pressure = 0 and (R) resistance = 0 and (f) frequency = 0


    p=R=P=f


    So far?
     
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #477
  21. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    Then I get , the Earth's magnetic field (Alpha)(R) to light (Gamma)(p) = P = (f)approx 530nm

    The resistance of Alpha opposing Gamma's speed creating (P) that is equal to (f).

    (p) is equal to change by (R)/t (time) that is equal to (P) that is equal to (f)
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #478
  22. theorist-constant12345

    theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    Analogy- Water will fall at a water fall as a linearity and propagates when there is resistance force from the ground.

    Only is a wave a wave when there is a resistance force, a surfer at sea loves the swell that makes the waves.
     

    Attached Files:

    theorist-constant12345, Feb 24, 2015
    #479
  23. origin

    origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,890
    You must be trolling and just having a laugh at our attempts to help you. Is this the only interaction you have with people or something?
     
    origin, Feb 24, 2015
    #480
Page 24 of 28
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page