• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

On self-reference, contradiction, and logic

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.

LOL ok.8)
 
David said:
Give me a break you have yet to even state anything countering anything remotely close to what I have posted on here,
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.
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.
David said:
You are no better than SoHi in that light, you treat maths, and science like it's a religion.
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:
and drinking a bit.
and this absolves you of all your errors because?
David said:
Either way it seems you exaggerating the premise of my posting there, and the actual discussion.
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:
What's you problem? Too many stressors in your life,
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.
David said:
Euler You are obviously into strings, so I fail to see what you could possible have on me.
3 years doing a maths degree at Cambridge?
David said:
LOL ok.8)
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.

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?
 
^i'm actually indirectly running this thread. i was given member by some member of the illuminati or something, his name was principle discord or something, and i'll get what i need soon enough... well, i'm not going to bother explaining to you, you wouldnt understand
 
What's The Answer, David?

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?
 
AlphaNumeric said:
E=md^m is incorrect with experiments, logic and obviousness

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.

Your theories have zero experimental evidence at all.

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?

You do not realise 1/0 is not a number, hence division by zero is not a valid operation.[/b]

Tell that to the computer you are sitting in front of typing this, you dolt.

Any number can "sway" an equation, not just irrational ones.

Why not eliminate the obvious ones first? BTW nice to see you finally acknowledged I was right, see my smile--->:)

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.

No it's just easier to speak on fractals, and have everyone understand you. Not everyone here is as intellectual as some of us. Mandelbrot did fractal work for reason.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

You think "pi is used to approximate dimensions" (that isn't even a meaningful sentence)

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.


All of those are claims you made with zero back up or directly in the face of mathematical proofs.

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.

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?

LOL great one, I'll think of something witty to throw back as an insult, naw nevermind it's not even worth it. ;)

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.

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. I don't respond to apparent flame-baiting usually, unless it involves religion. I'm trying not to become like everyone else, and be a dick on the internet. ;)

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?

Wow, must be nice. I'm struggling with a torn rotator cup, and slinging concrete, and mud just to get through school, and still be able to afford to feed myslef. Skiing? Shit I haven't done anything like that since High-school, when I used to snow board all the time, and go to my GF's house to fuck her. Oops, life's a bitch for me, I should quit whining about, I'm such a pussy. :p

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.

Actually your attacks on me started before I mentioned any of that, read back through the threads. You'll see I'm right.

3 years doing a maths degree at Cambridge?


I'm not impressed. It is impressive, but I'm not impressed.

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.

Ok, that's great, and your point? You have no empirical proof, and like everything else we've been seeing thrown at me, you are simply attacking me on some preconceived notion of who I am, and what I actually know. I usually just read what you guys post to see where you are at, and so far I'm mildly interested.

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!

Criticism isn't personal attacks based on the already mentioned notions you have on me. It's questions on why I think certain things should be, and why they are not correct, or what else should be involved to make it accurate. You have proved my point on elitism, and tenure intented minds, thanks for doing that for everyone to see. Now they don't have to meet anyone else to see what really goes on in the scientific community.

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]

High energy cosmic rays, that's all I need to say. ;)
As far as me going anywhere, we'll see eventually won't we?

Compact I would, and do listen to. Zorn is great for facts, euler is just another lapdog it seems, and well you....
Cex well, I don't think I've actually paid attention to his posts. Great minds think alike, and all. If I'm mistaken on any of these, I'll be honest and make the announcemet here.

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?

LOL, ok. Yours are usually filled with holes, and straightly only contain a smidgen of worthwhile math, but I'm not one to openly attack anyone, usually. Then again certain things happen when I get annoyed with spoiled brats.
 
Last edited:
Re: What's The Answer, David?

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?

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

i'm considering reading that 45min crazypaper to post something worthwhile adn get the thread on topic
 
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.
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:
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?
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:
Tell that to the computer you are sitting in front of typing this, you dolt.
Err....why would that help?
I refer you to here and the "Inverse" line. Notice no multiplicative inverse for a=0 exists. It is explicitly said in the second paragraph, 3rd line here. 0 cannot be inverted under multiplication, 1/0 does not exist. Telling this to my PC just means it says "Error" when I put in 1/0 into excel, C or whatever. Give it to a mathematician (this is where my basic pure knowledge is sufficent) and he'll tell you 1/0 is not an element of the Reals and therefore cannot be used in an equation. Why? Because otherwise you get :
2*0 = 1*0, then multiply both sides by 1/0 to get : 2=1, which we know is wrong, so 1/0 is an invalid number to use.

Of course, Compact can probably give a hugely more complicated but more indepth description of that, but I think mine is sufficent. Its like me saying "Whats 2 times elephant?" Well, elephant isn't a number, just like 1/0 isn't.
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.
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?

The definition of pi is exact, with zero inaccuracy. The decimal expansion is so precise it is exact when measured physically (since nothing smaller than a Planck length has meaning).
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.
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:
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.
Feel free to elaborate on it, I'm all ears.
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.
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:
LOL great one, I'll think of something witty to throw back as an insult, naw nevermind it's not even worth it. ;)
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:
Ok, that's great, and your point? You have no empirical proof,
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:
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.
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:
High energy cosmic rays, that's all I need to say. ;)
What about them? What evidence have they provided for your "Seeing more the universe at high energies" theory?
David said:
LOL, ok. Yours are usually filled with holes, and straightly only contain a smidgen of worthwhile math
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 hassle ;)
David said:
euler is just another lapdog it seems
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".

It seems perhaps its a common theme that when 2 people agree on something, and can back up their argument they are suddenly in a conspiracy together and thus it negates their point of view entirely. Its also a common theme that the person making the "you're his lacky" comments refuses to bother explaining himself.....
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
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.

Of course, I cannot directly refute David's papers until they are published. He has been saying "he's nearly there" for 12 months now, but now we finally have a "It'll be out before" date, which is the end of the year. If we don't see anything by then, I think we can all agree that David's been telling some fibs ;)
 
Last edited:
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.
You think you know about Chaos Theory because you have to put charges together? Riiiight....

I hear they are making sure employees at Burger King have a good grounding in Number Theory before they're allowed to work on the grill....
 
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?
Fine, I read the site. The information that I gleaned from it was this:

(i) Prime numbers have some interesting pattern-making properties. Wow, didn't know that one already.

(ii) There exist some quadratic equations which output a lot of primes when you give them some integer inputs. That's quite a nice coincidence, but given that you can construct an infinite number of quadratic equations, there's bound to be at least a few with some pretty surprising properties.

(iii) There are lots of things we don't know about prime numbers. See my comment on point (i)

Now, let's think about the way space-time flows. By 'flows' I assume you mean the way its curvature is changed by the mass within it. That is given by the Field Equations of General Relativity. GR is based on results from special relativity, Newtonian gravity and differential geometry. None of these have very much at all to do with number theory, so I fail to see what you're getting at.

Feel free to explain it - but my feeling is that you don't have the first clue what you're on about.
 
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.
So now you're accusing us of having a less valid opinion, because we go to well-known universities? Riiiight...

I get absolutely zero towards my tuition fees, accommodation, food, or anything else from my parents. I work hard every holiday so that I can afford to go to the university I go to (which, by the way, isn't any more expensive than any other uni in the UK. You don't have to be rich to get in - just intelligent). In fact, I have my finals starting in under two months, and I'm still working 40+ hours a week. I've worked fucking hard to get where I am now, and if you want to insult me by telling me how lucky I am to be here, well fuck you. Fuck you and your shitty, made-up theories and fuck you and your self-centred, pig-headed, whacked out beliefs.

You call us arrogant for not believing that you're going to achieve anything with your 'theory'? How about being so fucking cocky that you think you can overthrow a hundred years of the most original, intelligent thought in human history? How's that for fucking arrogance?

Come back to the conversation when you've got something intelligent to say, instead of your usual half-arsed dick-brained efforts. If even 10% of what you claim was true, you'd be able to stop all of this baiting and insulting in seconds. The fact that you can't demonstrates how much of a fucking fantasy land you're living in.

You said it yourself - "Great minds think alike". You'd think that with everyone single fucking person in this thread telling you how much of a dipshit you are, you'd have taken the fucking hint by now.

But hey, you're probably just going to ignore this post anyway, right?
 
sourlemone said:
I feel pity when you get so harshly discredited.
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.

Cex's 2nd post on this page is extremely vitriolic, but I have to admit, I've posted things like that before (on other forums) because too many people have the impression "A university with high entrance grades is entirely populated by rich toffs" which is bullshit. I spent less than almost all my friends from high school to go to university!

His other points are also valid, though said with about as much tact as a brick to the face ;)
 
^^You get funnier everyday. You call that patience replies? All I saw was blatant flaming, and I know that's what others have seem from you. You started this mess with Michael, and that is the truth. Also you are the one that has been making glaring errors in your posting, not me.

gloggawogga said:
That book was a nice read, as was your post, ebola. Too bad others have trashed this thread.

Although I'm partially responsible for merely being present, I apoligize for that.

The rest of you are a joke, fuck off, because you are still in the dark.

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.

Err....why would that help?
I refer you to here and the "Inverse" line. Notice no multiplicative inverse for a=0 exists. It is explicitly said in the second paragraph, 3rd line here. 0 cannot be inverted under multiplication, 1/0 does not exist. Telling this to my PC just means it says "Error" when I put in 1/0 into excel, C or whatever. Give it to a mathematician (this is where my basic pure knowledge is sufficent) and he'll tell you 1/0 is not an element of the Reals and therefore cannot be used in an equation. Why? Because otherwise you get :
2*0 = 1*0, then multiply both sides by 1/0 to get : 2=1, which we know is wrong, so 1/0 is an invalid number to use.

Of course, Compact can probably give a hugely more complicated but more indepth description of that, but I think mine is sufficent. Its like me saying "Whats 2 times elephant?" Well, elephant isn't a number, just like 1/0 isn't.


Boolean operators.

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".

It seems perhaps its a common theme that when 2 people agree on something, and can back up their argument they are suddenly in a conspiracy together and thus it negates their point of view entirely. Its also a common theme that the person making the "you're his lacky" comments refuses to bother explaining himself.....


What's your point? You think I'm another site. Well here's a list of site's a participate on, and my SN's on each one.

oink.me.uk - NidStyles
Slashdot.org - NidStyles
dogsonacid.com - NidStyles
Honda-tech.com - NidStyles

That's it buddy, see a reoccuring trend here? 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.

Well there is another site I'm on, but the name is the same, I won't tell you because we are kind of a close knit group at the moment.
 
Last edited:
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. personally i would rather mock you, so maybe since i said that you'll stop posting.

btw: don't think i forgot about our bet (which was, for the innocent bystander, that citizen david was going to publish something that would completely overturn everything everone knows about physics by january 1st or he's going to owe me $1000. period. end! i know that realistically i have about as much chance of seeing that money as any of us have a chance of seeing any of the proofs he claims to have - but at the same time he should be reminded). i have no problem staking it.
 
Last edited:
David said:
^^You get funnier everyday. You call that patience replies?
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:
Also you are the one that has been making glaring errors in your posting, not me.
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?

As I've said, I'll back up most maths or physics comments with links. Others I could knock up a page of latex without too much hassle. While I accidentally slip up now and again, the occasional minor error in my posts is nothing compared to your constant often glaring errors, which you fail to explain. Almost every "error" of mine you point out is generally a result of your own lack of understanding (see the 1/0 paragraph below).
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.
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.

Cex, Euler and myself do have jobs outside of term term, but thanks for jumping to the wrong conclusion. We just don't bother mentioning we work, we don't see it as something we have to mention. As Cex put it, does it negate any of our points anyway? Our corrections of your posts would be just as valid if we'd read them from a textbook while waiting in the Unemployed Office, or if we'd heard them from Einstein himself.

David said:
Boolean operators.
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.

[edit]A Google search found this : http://mathforum.org/t2t/discuss/message.taco?thread=3893&n=15 which elaborates on why 1/0 doesn't exist as a number. He even uses a similar metaphor as me with "2 divided by fluffy bunny". If you still don't understand why 1/0 isn't a number, then there isn't a lot anyone can do for you....[/edit]
michael 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.
Pretty much what I've been saying too :). Back up what you say David, or don't be surprised when people get tired and annoyed you haven't produced "the goods" months later after a lot of fanfair you make about your projects.
David said:
The rest of you are a joke, fuck off, because you are still in the dark.
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?

1 or 2 A4 pages, not a lot to ask. If you really hate the lynching you get from practically everyone, then why not shut us up? If I piss you off so much, why not just post some work to shut me up? Euler, Cex and myself have our 3rd year exams in 2 months, we don't have the time to steal and elaborate on your ideas, even if they are worthy of stealing! I'm more bothered about getting a good grade in my exams!
David said:
What's your point? You think I'm another site
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.
Another website I'm a member of currently has someone claiming to have disproved Andrew Wiles proof of Fermats Last Thereom "because you cannot find the largest cube". He too offers no evidence other than "Because I say so", and ignores most replies because they give too much reason for his "proof" being shit. Another one claimed he'd publish the proof to Pi being exactly 3.125, but that was about 6 months ago so I guess he's given up.

It just seems a common thread throughout the internet that lots of people make grand claims, offer no evidence, then fizzle back into obscurity when they realise its going nowhere. You've got till the end of the year, as you bet with Michael. Remember, being published isn't enough (less than amazing papers are published all the time), your papers must be published and hailed as a new paradigm in the world of physics (since thats what you claimed). If they aren't, then you lose your bet.
 
Last edited:
David said:
Seriously, I'm not paid enough to educate you, in order for you to learn, you must think on your own.
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.

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.
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!
 
^^You are so great right. Now who are you again? I'd like to speak with you profs about you.


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.

No you'll eat a hat of my chosing, a fedora, made of aluminum foil. I have it made already as a joke, but that's what you'll eat. I'll even fly out to England to school you on it.

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.

Lying is your strongest suit these days isn't it.

The rest is tripe, and insular. Therefore not even worth mentioning. Go flamebait elsewhere.

My bet with Michael is with mhim, not you. You have no rights to judge what is valid there, merely because you are already biased, and inground in your thoughts on anything I do. You were the first day I spoke of it.


It's not my fault you tend to be a bigot here.
 
Top