Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: SPLIT : Jacob629's Personal Theory

  1. #1 SPLIT : Jacob629's Personal Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    Photons are particles (orbs) of white light. When they collide in out atmosphere they lose energy(resonance) and revert to a resonance quantity for a photon that falls in our rainbow spectrum. Since all particles have positive and negative poles, they are also attracted to our magnetic poles, and as they align to enter a borealis magnetic field, they lose resonance and thereby gain color. When they lose enough photon resonance quantity, they revert to free electrons, which we should work on collecting as an energy source.

    Galaxies are also orbs (HUGE groups of orbs) All orbs are spherical with a captive resonance energy that causes spin in an axis. From the proton-neutron-electron to a planet, star or galaxy, all orbs share this property. The greater the orb, the greater the force of attraction (gravity). There are greater velocities than light, light magnetism..

    This is a new framework for evaluating our accumulated data of a century. [LINK REMOVED] In Einstein's last lectures, he was looking for a unitary particle. Its not space-time that is curved, but magnetic fields and the orbs interacting with them.


    Last edited by Markus Hanke; October 9th, 2014 at 12:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post

    This is a new framework for evaluating our accumulated data of a century.
    A moderator, please have him remove the link to his crank theory, please.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    Dr. Professor,
    Literally thousands have viewed the author's presentation of The Resonance Principle. Scientific technocrats who lack creative imagination are confused by it. They rail comments attacking the manner in which its presented. They also seem to stop viewing before five minutes of Resonance 1. I hope you will not miss a beautiful and fun presentation stripped of all technobabble. I listened to the author give explanation after explanation in pristine logical logical terms of such things as : the detection of strings, quarks, supposed bending of space and my favorite black holes. A true scientist should have their mind open to receive information and try to apply it to what they already know. Science has hit a brick wall because it is looking for an imagined complexity. The complexity of the universe actually parallels the complexities made possible by 0's and 1's in the digital world.

    Yes, there is a God particle. It is composed of two things. They were made to interact with each other, yet they are opposite to each other. This is beautifully explained so you can conceptualize this new system. The author sees huge quantums of time being wasted for the sake of trying to find a ghost in the dark. You must know what it is you are playing with to make factual observations based upon experimentation.

    I hope no one will take it the wrong way when you see the explanation of a microwave oven. I hope you won't misunderstand the idea of a spectrum with two opposite ends which has a center point. And, every particle which the author calls an orb containing an energy he calls resonance, can be measured for its place in this spectrum. All of the classic equations such as Newton's Fxm=v become more useful once it is known that there are more already measured values that can be applied to these equations to achieve practical results. Each orb has numerous values, its force of attraction = Gravity, its force of repulsion (anti-gravity), its magnetic force as it spins on an axis on account of its captive resonance exerting an omnidirectional repulsive force (desire to leave the orb), its temperature, its vibration quantity, and more.
    One can determine what an orb's wavelength will be when in vector motion on account of its velocity and resonance to orb ratio. There is so much more than when you grasp the mindset you'll be like me. I now find myself explaining everything I encounter via The Resonance Principle. You will find that the classic laws of physics are always reinforced. I think its a matter of reinterpreting experimental data within this pristine system. I also think it takes someone who hasn't been jaded by the current state of science to clearly see this reality. For me to describe the author to you would be like to talk about a man like Isaac Newton who didn't have scientific laboratories with advanced scientific tools.

    Lastly in this remark, the author says "without a basic understanding of the God particle orb and the pristine God energy resonance, no one in science can understand every orb can be a graviton, and further cannot comprehend what a neutron is even though many ascribe its purpose as a gluon And furthermore, data derived from particle colliders cannot be properly interpreted".

    The Resonance Principle shows me that anti-gravity is quite possible, collecting electrons out of the air which were formerly photons from the sun before their subsequent collisions and loss of some resonance converting them into free floating electrons, is a path we should be working on right now. As you go through the movies, its a constant building of knowledge, he revisits the same basic subjects over and over as you gain more knowledge.

    The author is currently working on Resonance 6 in which he will open an understanding to the most ethereal concept within the principle, "The Field of Influence". This is the boundary limit of the two opposite forces in an orb and secondary fields around atoms, tertiary fields around molecules or any quantities of orbs that coalesce.
    He's already given us a preview window through magnetism and the magnetic field in Resonance 5, although these fields are described and build upon through the journey of watching the current 5 parts. Most of you have probably measured things, produced experiments and data that all relate to this, but you're not interpreting your data within a universal system.

    I want to share this with you and challenge you to view and contemplate. He told me "for those who can only splat out negative remarks, I don't give a rat's ass what you say" and it reinforces him to remain outside your scientific circles. He has found the most creative humans, including some scientists, collect Fine Art. He has been well educated over 38 years by several of the most astounding scientists of the 20th century. They helped him self-educate, they love what he did and found no fault with it, but he will not share their names with you because of the ongoing human plague which he calls closed jealous minds; however, I know there are plenty of you out there that are like me who will view The Resonance Principle like a beautiful gift, not a bag filled with dog poop.


    Jacob Greenwood Posts: 6Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 7:18 pm

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    MODERATOR NOTE : The main sections are reserved for the discussion of established science, so we do not allow personal theories there; however, you are welcome to present your model here in the "Personal Theories and Alternative Ideas" section, so I have moved your posts to here. Please describe your ideas directly here on the forum, and don't link to personal websites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    Censorious removing of links, when not extraneous to the subject matter at hand, is like Hillary Clinton trying to explain Bengazi. Is freedom of thought lost to academia as well? The Resonance Principle may not be as Victorian-time-machine like as, from the book Relativity by John Duffield
    "The proton is a trefoil knot with three turns and a twist. The neutron is the same plus a twist and two turns. The neutrino is a turn, a mere running loop, and muon and tau neutrinos have more loops, as do the muon and tau themselves. The antiparticles are "mirror-image" knots that go the other way, and the unstable particles are not true knots, so they always come undone"

    Everything that modern physics produces can be explained in terms of The Resonance Principle. If its good enough for two elderly men of renown who worked on the Atom bomb, both Fine Art collectors, whom the author first presented the presentation, then its good enough for me. Though retired, they now challenge young scientists with provokative questions based on The Resonance Principle



    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,619
    Everything that modern physics produces can be explained in terms of The Resonance Principle
    Unsupported assertion, please provide some evidence for this or admit you are just another loony crackpot. (I'm not holding my breath your posts reek of pseudoscience).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post
    Censorious removing of links
    Just explain your idea here on the forum itself, no one will stop you so long as the discussion remains within the forum rules. What this forum as a whole is not for is redirecting people to external personal websites; hence I have removed only the link but not any of the other text in your post. You are, however, welcome to link us to a paper ( not a site ) in PDF or another format explaining your idea, if you wish to do that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    He's already got a thread (in General Discussion) on the subject.
    But he's failed to provide any support for the claims.
    I doubt he'd do so here either.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    Here is for starters. a 4 minute overview video. Not a like to a website, but youtube. The video conversion are not as pristine as TheResonancePrinciple dot org.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAUSYAPvJUg

    It is a video-book presentation, for the 21st century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,619
    YouTube videos are not evidence, every nut and his dog can (and do) post them, you are just confirming my initial appraisal of your posts...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post
    Here is for starters. a 4 minute overview video. Not a like to a website, but youtube.
    Youtube is not science.
    Nor is a video a paper.

    The video conversion are not as pristine as TheResonancePrinciple dot org.
    Which speaks even less well of the whole idea.
    "The Resonance Principle" is unadulterated unscientific rubbish: all empty claims, no actual evidence.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    Wrong. A video is a paper of the 21st century. Images (with words) explains more than pen and ink. Think of Resonance Principle the next time you turn on a dipole light. If you don't know, you will never understand. This is the basis of your mental reality. If you were raised on this principle, you would be railing against the nonsense you've been taught. Yes, things work, but WHY do they work? you have to invent loops, turns, -3/2 charges, myriad exotic particles that are merely hyper-resonated orbs that then lose resonance and coalesce into a proton, etc.

    Einstein stated "God doesn't play dice with the universe", and in his last lectures, Einstein was looking for the unitary particle. The author of the Resonance Principle knows for 40 years a now elderly nuclear scientist (highly esteemed, a Fine Art collector and one of his physics mentors) who knew Einstein and stated this about Einstein. Richard Feynman also stated "I received a Nobel Prize for sweeping the infinities under a rug". Calculus is a game. Open your brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,619
    OK, you're a nutter, I'll leave you to it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post
    Wrong.
    Oops, no.

    A video is a paper of the 21st century. Images (with words) explains more than pen and ink. Think of Resonance Principle the next time you turn on a dipole light. If you don't know, you will never understand. This is the basis of your mental reality. If you were raised on this principle, you would be railing against the nonsense you've been taught. Yes, things work, but WHY do they work? you have to invent loops, turns, -3/2 charges, myriad exotic particles that are merely hyper-resonated orbs that then lose resonance and coalesce into a proton, etc.
    Like I said: all that video does (and the others on the site) is make claims.
    There's no maths, there's no evidence, there's no... science.

    Einstein was looking for the unitary particle.
    Nope.

    The author of the Resonance Principle knows for 40 years a now elderly nuclear scientist (highly esteemed, a Fine Art collector and one of his physics mentors) who knew Einstein and stated this about Einstein.
    Oh wait.
    Einstein's LECTURES contain the declaration that he was looking for a "unitary particle", yet the site's author relies on (alleged) word of mouth to get the information?
    Can't actually quote from the relevant lecture?
    I wonder why that would be...

    Considering that the author (a self-proclaimed artist, not scientist) can't even get his art history right why should we lend his nonsensical ramblings about non-existent "science" any credence?

    ETA:
    Open your mind
    "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it." - Terry Pratchett
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    There is logic, and a duality (orbs and resonance) that allows for infinite complexity through their interactions. Is it also not logical that matter and energy do not interact outside this physical universe and the physical universe was created for their interaction? Don't hate the messenger. The author was merely a recepticle for this knowledge, which he made into video form so people could understand. I know its a new way of thinking, but it fortifies everything the Standard Model is built upon. It merely provides context.

    Skepticism is healthy. Close mindedness is not. Watch the five videos, they are video dissertations building upon accumulated knowledge of the previous portion. Then reply.
    You don't have to "pass the bill" to see whats in the bill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post
    There is logic, and a duality (orbs and resonance) that allows for infinite complexity through their interactions.
    So no evidence then.

    Is it also not logical that matter and energy do not interact outside this physical universe and the physical universe was created for their interaction?
    Whut?
    There's no logic there, just (unsupported) belief.

    The author was merely a recepticle for this knowledge
    You mean he made it up.

    it fortifies everything the Standard Model is built upon
    Utter nonsense.
    It doesn't even corroborate current knowledge.

    Skepticism is healthy. Close mindedness is not. Watch the five videos, they are video dissertations building upon accumulated knowledge of the previous portion. Then reply.
    You don't have to "pass the bill" to see whats in the bill.
    You've had the reply: unsupported claims are not science.
    There's no reason whatsoever to accept the claims made (especially since the first sentence in the quote you gave in the other thread) - "The physical universe was intelligently created" - makes it as much anti-science as unscientific.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    14
    There are those scientists, such as Einstein and Newton and the author's physicist friends who believe deeply in a creator and still have guilt over the atomic bomb, because they want science to be used for peaceful purposes, not destruction. If you think humanity is the epitome of God's creation (wait...I forgot, you don't believe in a creator), look around the world. We are in a very sorry state.

    For those of you who think science and God are incompatible, read MIT Physicist Gerald Schroeder's excellent book: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob629 View Post
    There are those scientists, such as Einstein and Newton and the author's physicist friends who believe deeply in a creator and still have guilt over the atomic bomb, because they want science to be used for peaceful purposes, not destruction.
    Einstein didn't "deeply believe in a creator".
    Regardless, whatever ANY scientist believes about "god" isn't science it's belief.
    And appeals to authority aren't evidence.

    For those of you who think science and God are incompatible, read MIT Physicist Gerald Schroeder's excellent book: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
    All that book demonstrates is that (at least one) scientist and "god" aren't incompatible.
    It's cherry-picked post-hoc data dredging by someone so "scientific" he even rejects evolution.
    The book shows NOTHING about the "compatibility" between science and "god".
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; October 9th, 2014 at 03:30 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'm going down the crank checklist, but I can't tick the boxes fast enough.

    I have yet to see any actual science from this poster.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. SPLIT : PauloBudgie's Personal Theory
    By PauloBudgie in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 19th, 2014, 11:36 AM
  2. SPLIT : Bangstrom's Personal Ideas
    By bangstrom in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 1st, 2014, 11:47 PM
  3. SPLIT : Glenn Jacobs' Personal Theory
    By Glenn Jacobs in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: February 20th, 2014, 09:08 PM
  4. YangYin's personal theory
    By YangYin in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 4th, 2014, 01:53 PM
  5. My personal theory on traveling in time
    By marine(uc) in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 13th, 2013, 08:58 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •