qwe
Bluelight Crew
April Fools is over people
Euler said:You wouldn't understand any of what I'm into - mainly because it requires more than 12yr olds knowledge of Mathematics.
I implore you however - never stop posting on here. Myself, and a few other friends, find you immensely entertaining.
E=md^m is incorrect with experiments, logic and obviousnessDavid said:Give me a break you have yet to even state anything countering anything remotely close to what I have posted on here,
I openly admt (and have done several times in this thread) that physics isn't 100% correct. Why do I say otherwise? Your claims about things like 1/0 are bullshit becase mathematics is a closed system. This isn't me being religious or a zealot, its a fact about logically closed systems. The only way your claims can be correct is if you've rederived mathematics from its basic axioms (different axioms!) to something strikingly similar to ours but with 1/0 as a number, but then you can prove 1=2, which is a contradiction.David said:You are no better than SoHi in that light, you treat maths, and science like it's a religion.
and this absolves you of all your errors because?David said:and drinking a bit.
I used it as (non-isolated) example of you posting things that which are not true, and upon being pressed to back up your argument you collapse like a house of cards or quit replying.David said:Either way it seems you exaggerating the premise of my posting there, and the actual discussion.
I'm into my 3rd week of Easter holidays, of which I spent 1 skiing and I've spent the second infront of the TV. Pretty laid back. My problem is your need to reply with statements and claims with which you offer no backup other than "I say it is" and then wonder why you get abuse after you do it for the 10th time?David said:What's you problem? Too many stressors in your life,
3 years doing a maths degree at Cambridge?David said:Euler You are obviously into strings, so I fail to see what you could possible have on me.
I know for a fact Euler is into a lot of fluid dynamics and dynamical systems. Dynamical Systems includes the basics of chaos theory, so he is aware (and hence I, since I've seen his notes) how much crap your "chaos theory" knowledge is.David said:LOL ok.8)
AlphaNumeric said:E=md^m is incorrect with experiments, logic and obviousness
Your theories have zero experimental evidence at all.
You do not realise 1/0 is not a number, hence division by zero is not a valid operation.[/b]
Any number can "sway" an equation, not just irrational ones.
You think chaos theory is about fractal dimensions and "f(x)", when its about the study of the sensativity of systems to their initial conditions through te use of topological spaces.
You consider equations for "pi" approximations when we know pi to trillions of times more accuracy than we know the charge on an electron or the mass of a proton, and hence more uncertainty lies elsewhere in equations.
You think electron mass is measured at "an approximate energy level", when there are numerous ways t get its rest mass, when its at ground state.
You think "pi is used to approximate dimensions" (that isn't even a meaningful sentence)
All of those are claims you made with zero back up or directly in the face of mathematical proofs.
I openly admt (and have done several times in this thread) that physics isn't 100% correct. Why do I say otherwise? Your claims about things like 1/0 are bullshit becase mathematics is a closed system. This isn't me being religious or a zealot, its a fact about logically closed systems. The only way your claims can be correct is if you've rederived mathematics from its basic axioms (different axioms!) to something strikingly similar to ours but with 1/0 as a number, but then you can prove 1=2, which is a contradiction.
and this absolves you of all your errors because?
I used it as (non-isolated) example of you posting things that which are not true, and upon being pressed to back up your argument you collapse like a house of cards or quit replying.
I'm into my 3rd week of Easter holidays, of which I spent 1 skiing and I've spent the second infront of the TV. Pretty laid back. My problem is your need to reply with statements and claims with which you offer no backup other than "I say it is" and then wonder why you get abuse after you do it for the 10th time?
Don't mention your "amazing" theorys or some groundbreaking insight you've had over "our pathetic species" until its being published, and the level of hostility and open mocking you get from myself, Euler, Cex and a few others would not occur.
3 years doing a maths degree at Cambridge?
I know for a fact Euler is into a lot of fluid dynamics and dynamical systems. Dynamical Systems includes the basics of chaos theory, so he is aware (and hence I, since I've seen his notes) how much crap your "chaos theory" knowledge is.
Anyone with passing knowledge of degree level mathematics (which unfortunately is not many) will see the multitude of errors you make. People with passing knowledge of degree level physics will see the multitude of errors you make. Heck, even highschool physics would do in some cases.
Anyone "critiquing" your (I'm sure) soon to be published papers on your revolutioning new theorys about physics will be even more picky and knowledgable than we are. If you cannot take criticism from people on the internet with basic knowledge, you're in for a shock when you get your evaluation back!
You can blind people without more advanced maths/physics knowledge wth fancy looking words and equations which seem complex, but to those of us who do know those areas, its obvious your not going anywhere. Okay, I might be closed minded (I'd say I'm not, I just prefer to ask for PROOF before I discard 100+ years of experimentally verified theories. Just call me old fashioned) but there are at least another 4 people on here (Zorn, Compact, Euler and Cex) who are knowledgable in this stuff, and they all point out errors in your posts, and theories. [/b]
Perhaps we're in a huge conspiracy to steal your ideas, or perhaps its just that everyone agrees your posts don't hold a lot of weight?
GoddessFrija said:David/Ebola,
Quit the BS.
What's THE Answer, where did we all go wrong. How can we save the world, what's the world's greatest problem?
The units on both sides match, so at least its possible. E=md^m do not match. Of course you could be doing the thing Relativity likes to do and for the purpose of niceness using dimensionless quantities for mass and density, but that would mean 1kg=1 and 1kg/m^3 = 1 => 1kg = 1m^3, which contradict one another. Hence, yours, even with some relabelling, is not logically consistent. At least E=mc^2 is. Then throw in decades of experiments, all matching E=mc^2, and not matching E=md^m, and you've more against you.David said:By itself E=mc^2 is incorrect as well. You don't see me complaining about that do you? In the system that was designed around it, it works, just as mine does.
You yourself said "but at higher than known frequencies, it starts to shift into a phase which is still there, but beyond any means we have of detecting it." You have often complained about String Theories lack of experimental backup for its claims, yet your theory is based upon "frequencies we cannot measure", which seems a touch hypocritical. I am curious about the universe and new ideas (or I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing), but your attitude is "My theory is fine with no experimental evidence but String Theory is cobblers". Even though String Theory matches current experiments.....David said:Coming from the guy that hasn't even seen it, that's classic. Where's your scientific curiousity, you've displayed nothing but curt attitude, and flaming, you are pathetic, there I stooped to your level, happy?
Err....why would that help?David said:Tell that to the computer you are sitting in front of typing this, you dolt.
The inaccuracy is in the decimal expansion, the definition is exact. Like any physical system, there are inaccuracies. Pi we can get write down so well that its like measuring the radius of the universe to within 1 planck length (infact, its about 10^billion times better than that). The mass of an electron we have down to 1 part in a 10^12. As you can see any "inaccuracy" in Pi is so fantastically tiny, the quantum fluctuations in a system (even in measuring the radius of the universe!) would be larger. When you're doing engineering do you worry about the billionth decimal place? How about the 100 billionth?David said:Yet again, you acknowledge the inaccuracy, then try to redirect the attention to other variables, that's funny. I'll have to remember that one.
There are numerous methods which take into account the fact energy is put into the system, and allow for methods of "extracting" rest mass from objects. Momentum and energy are easily measurable up to the Uncertainty Limit and rest masses of objects can be calculated. Usually the error is one part in millons, often billons. Then it comes down to limits of our technology.David said:That's what we interpet as it's ground state, nothing is measurable without altering it. I thought you were up to date on Quantum, because that one's what fifty+ years old. I can't be bothered to remember the exact date. Maybe you could.
Feel free to elaborate on it, I'm all ears.David said:Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it has no meaning. There's stuff you've read that you didn't understand at first, you've even admitted to it.
Okay, "Your thought experiments are based on zero evidence pointing to those effects at high energies". I could say "At higher than known energies, all matter turns into electrons". Its a thought experiment, but nothing so far measured in any experiment gives any hint of it occuring, so my thought experiment holds no water.David said:You should have said thought experiments there, but I'll let it slide. Either way you have no idea what it's based on, you never bothered asking about. I got the cold shoulder from the first attempt to open dialogue, then what two monthes later you accused me of not handing it over after my claims. The evidence is in my PM box, and on various threads here on BL.
Since I have just linked to two pages which show 1/0 is not a number, I think any witty retort would be a waste.David said:LOL great one, I'll think of something witty to throw back as an insult, naw nevermind it's not even worth it.![]()
Chaos Theory orginated as a branch of mathematics, about systems with sensitivity to initial conditions. The definition of "chaotic" and the resultant development is within mathematics, so "empirical proof" is not required. Your talk of "f(x) and fractal dimensions" is still distinctly in the realm of mathematics too. It does play a part in chaos theory, but it not the essense of it, but rather a resultant development from it. Its like saying the essense of Relativity is black holes. They are a consequence once you push the theory far enough, but they are not the fundamental idea behind relativity.David said:Ok, that's great, and your point? You have no empirical proof,
I do work in the holidays. Also, its a misconception that Cambridge is for well off people and only well-to-do people go there. Some are, most aren't. I'm from South Wales, which most people in the UK will tell you, isn't the "cream of Britain". Euler is from one of the worst performing high schools in North Wales. Our backgrounds aren't "a life of luxury and spending the summer on Daddy's boat", but thanks for making the stereotypical view, which is what you've been complaining I do to you.David said:Sorry, as a few people are aware I work for a living, and my work is whenever the customers need me there, I'm there. I suppose you are not aware what it's like to have to work for everything, being the intellectuual, and being able to go to such a prestigous school, and all.
What about them? What evidence have they provided for your "Seeing more the universe at high energies" theory?David said:High energy cosmic rays, that's all I need to say.![]()
Ask me to back up any of my comments on mathematics or physics, and I'll find you plenty of links and papers. My 1/0 comment for instance. Took me 30 seconds to find those 2 links, you offered "Tell it to your computer, you dolt". I could put a lot more mathematics in, but the lack of text options and the fact noone would care would make it pointless. Of course, if you ever wish a more elaborate explaination, I can knock up a few pages in pdf without much hassleDavid said:LOL, ok. Yours are usually filled with holes, and straightly only contain a smidgen of worthwhile math
It is strange. Euler and I are both members of another forum site, which has a member who (by his own admittance) knows nothing about physics and mathematics, but often comes into a topic about them and puts down claims like "Light doens't do that" or "That number clearly isn't...." or "Space isn't...". When I ask him for evidence of his claims, he resuses, saying its not worth his time. Euler than asks him, often throwing in a quick explaination why his ideas counter evidence we've got, and he than labels Euler "a lapdog" or "Alpha's physics pal" or "maths lacky".David said:euler is just another lapdog it seems
It is of mild entertainment to me, I'll admit. Saying that, I would prefer not having to have this agruments, but I'm not the only one who is tired of David's claims with no backup, and until we see your papers, thats all they are. If the "titbits" he's decided to show us were meaningful or held promise I'd not have any problem with him, but they haven't been, at least to me and a few others.qwe said:this thread is lost... the only ones who return to this thread, i think, are those who enjoy this digital arena fight for humor value
You think you know about Chaos Theory because you have to put charges together? Riiiight....David said:Ever design a detonator? Ever learn how to shape a charge? I know more about chaos theory in the real world experiences than you'd imagine. We had three weeks of five hour classes on the math behind placing charges, before they even handed us anything remotely looking like an explosive. That was only the beginning.
Fine, I read the site. The information that I gleaned from it was this:David said:http://numberspiral.com/
Read it all the way through, and then think about how space-time is said to flow, and how bodies in space are measured on it.
See the above reply, and tell me what you get from it, and I'll tell you what I got from it. We'll see what you come with in simple discourse here. I could explain it all, but what fun would that be?
So now you're accusing us of having a less valid opinion, because we go to well-known universities? Riiiight...David said:Sorry, as a few people are aware I work for a living, and my work is whenever the customers need me there, I'm there. I suppose you are not aware what it's like to have to work for everything, being the intellectuual, and being able to go to such a prestigous school, and all.
Hoffsteder's "Godel, Escher, and Bach"
sourlemone said:I actually feel sorry for you, David. I feel pity when you get so harshly discredited. Why can't you just accept critique?
As Michael says, there does reach a point there curiousity about his ideas, and patient replies about errors in his posts turns to annoyance and vitriolic replies after he ignores pointers and requests for elaborations.sourlemone said:I feel pity when you get so harshly discredited.
gloggawogga said:That book was a nice read, as was your post, ebola. Too bad others have trashed this thread.
My patience ran out months ago. You've been saying "My theory is almost ready", "I've got a superior theory", "Relativity is wrong" for 12 months now.David said:^^You get funnier everyday. You call that patience replies?
I would like to point your attention to here and here where I've listed your errors in your posts (which you've kindly ignored to respond to most of them). Would you care to explain how you think Relativity should be "simplified" mathematicially (its non-linear modelling), yet you also think its stupid we model some non-linear systems linearly. You complain we overcomplicate things, but at the same time complain we aren't modelling complicated systems properly? Which is it going to be?David said:Also you are the one that has been making glaring errors in your posting, not me.
Cex is in the same university as me (hence why I know the courses he's done) so your insult about me leading a pampered life because of the university I attend was an insult on him also. You didn't bother to think perhaps I'm not the only person who goes to that university. As Cex has rather bluntly pointed out, your stereotypical jump to an incorrect assumption about a good university was not only wrong but terribly insulting to myself, Euler and particularly him. You complain you have to work a lot to pay to university, well guess what SO DO WE! You made exactly the same assumption about me you complained I made about you. Though I never said you lead an easy life, you just threw in the fact you have to work too, as a reason for your lack of finished theories, due to a lack of spare time. You specifically commented that since I go to my university, I'm an intellectual who doesn't know what its like to work, and has it easy.David said:CEX I don't even know who the fuck you are, and I fail to understand why you would assume that my posting was in any way aimed at you. You need to take a step there, and think a bit at what I was hinting at, it's right in front of you. Seriously, I'm not paid enough to educate you, in order for you to learn, you must think on your own.
Yeah, thats swell. How does it negate the fact 1/0 isn't a number? You can not use it in mathematics (so any theory you use it in will instantly be wrong) and if you give it to a computer it says "Error" because it cannot compute it. If you submit a paper which uses the "object" 1/0 then you'll have it returned to you. Its an elementary idea, "Don't divide by zero", though the reason is rooted in the concept of "Fields". I've shown you proof, you've offered little as a retort, and nothing of any worth.David said:Boolean operators.
Pretty much what I've been saying toomichael said:give us a link to that firefox plugin you told me was completed, if you don't mind. or stop complaining about how we mock you here.
Feel free to enlighten us, or them or anyone. As Cex says, you could stop the insulting, the arguing and the general slating you get in seconds by showing us some of your work. A small amount isn't going to get stolen (or are you too paranoid?) but it'll be enough to show us you've actually worked on something and that it actually means something. You've been doing it for 5 years, and having been "near completion" for about a year, so surely you've got something to show for all that work?David said:The rest of you are a joke, fuck off, because you are still in the dark.
No, I'm aware you and this other person are not the same, I'm making the point that its a common theme on the internet that people like to make claims but when a few people counter the claims with a decent quantity of evidence they are suddenly labelled as groupies and in cahoots, and everyone is ganging up on the claiment, and somehow its unfair, despite the claiment offering little to no reason for his or her claims.David said:What's your point? You think I'm another site
Haha, right. In other words, you couldn't explain jack shit even if you wanted to to? Go on, I implore you, prove me wrong. If you can make me rethink my current ideas, and get me to believe, even for a second, that there might be the slightest possibility that there's a chance that anything you say is right, then I'll eat my hat. I'll even post an .avi of me doing it. Promise.David said:Seriously, I'm not paid enough to educate you, in order for you to learn, you must think on your own.
Please, please do. If it'll put a stop to your constant bitching because you think everyone's ganging up on you, I welcome it. I won't have a problem refuting the bullshit claims of a thousand idiots any more than I'll have a problem with one, so bring them on!If you would like I could introduce few people that know every thing I post, because I'm involved with them on every single site, there's two here on BL that are on all the same site's I am.
Haha, right. In other words, you couldn't explain jack shit even if you wanted to to? Go on, I implore you, prove me wrong. If you can make me rethink my current ideas, and get me to believe, even for a second, that there might be the slightest possibility that there's a chance that anything you say is right, then I'll eat my hat. I'll even post an .avi of me doing it. Promise.
AlphaNumeric said:My patience ran out months ago. You've been saying "My theory is almost ready", "I've got a superior theory", "Relativity is wrong" for 12 months now.