An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

Gerry Nightingale said:
So...we're back to that again? "Peer review?" "Implement the scientific method?" Okay...that's exactly what I WANT! So, you tell me how to do this, because I have exhausted every venue I can...and at no small expense either, including the purchase of a $500 laptop! You think maybe I got "online" so I could look at porn?
Click to expand...

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




Gerry Nightingale said:
"Just fantasy?" Okay...then why did you come on the thread to start with? Just some form of amusement?

How about this...you show my stuff to the "people you know" who are involved with theoretical physics, and then they can contact me directly, if they want to.
Click to expand...


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]
 
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.
 
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!)
 
Gerry Nightingale said:
In reply to reply #75, re: replies.
I didn't tell you to offer answers on MY thread. YOU did that of your own volition. You have your agenda, which consists of quote-mining as rebuttal, and adding a few choice nouns of your own...which is unfortunate for YOU, not me. Quote-mining is NOT rebuttal from you, as none of it originated from you! Adding "comments" of"read this" means you know how to "cut and paste", NOTHING MORE! You simply don't understand the "substance" of what I write...and that's okay.
Click to expand...

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.

An "alternate theory" means it is INHERENTLY ALTERNATE. It will not "validate" the works of others. That is something YOU don't see, or want to see.
Click to expand...

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

P.S. If all I wanted to do was "post my delusions" all over the internet, why would I do it with my ACTUAL NAME ON IT!!?? Think on that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Gerry Nightingale said:
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".
Click to expand...

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

Do you understand physics at all?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Put your crap on someone else's thread.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gerry:

Gerry Nightingale said:
In reply to James R., re: your #62.

Cheers! Nice to hear from you.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear from you too. I asked you a few quite specific questions which you did not answer. Here they are again:

1. Do you mean "superpositional QM states"? Why don't you support them?
2. Please define the terms "metric", "continuum metric" and "energy-metric" for me.
3. Can you give me an example of a prediction your concepts makes that is testable using the Solar System?
4. Can you give me an example of a contention from QM that you believe has no proof whatsoever?

I'll respond once you've answered.

Thanks for reading!
 
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.
 
Gerry Nightingale said:
"Wavying?" How about "waving" instead, as in "waving good-bye". Your response is that of a petulant child. Later, dud.
Click to expand...



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. :)
 
Gerry Nightingale said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

YOU want proof??? The "proof" is known and accepted because the results are ALWAYS THE SAME. "c" remains "c".
Click to expand...
The invariance of c has noting to do with the speed of light being slower in different mediums, dolt.

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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
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?

I am NOT going to engage in theoretical physics "Ping-Pong" with you!
Click to expand...

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

I write theories concerning ab initio "causations"...NOT "frame-dragging" observational effects of watching a flashlight beam thru bicycle wheel spokes!!!
Click to expand...
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.

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"
Click to expand...

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.

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?"
Click to expand...

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 reading, and being an utterly clueless ass with your responses)
Click to expand...
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:rolleyes:
 
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!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top