Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: new scientist: "time gains an extra dimension"

  1. #1 new scientist: "time gains an extra dimension" 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this new front page direction of physics:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...dimension.html

    (I undersand they (new scientist) don't post the entire article, so maybe someone with that magazine could highlight the main points of the entire article. If I did that, I could be accused of being biased, so please check the article out.)

    If anyone can compare that to the www download http://www.streamsystems.com.au/ it could make for an interesting discussion with someone who has experience in that new field.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The principle difference between the idea described in the New Scientist and your own speculation, Stream systems, is that I somewhat understood the former.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    That's you, and that's probably Bars as well.

    You got me there with your scientific touchstone of opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    But, as highlighted in the other thread, I replace his symmetries and super-symmetries with "dualistic logic". Surely that's not too taxing on your reasoning?

    Check out the other thread.

    here:

    looking4recruits, others are on the path of theory I am on. I am not the only one proposing time being two-dimensional. In fact, it is front-page news for new scientist magazine, currently. The issue is, "who can make the most of it". I am lucky in that I have spent a full 8 hour per day, 365 days a year, for 8 or so years, on that very precise subject of theory and logical research development strategies. The one thing I lack, currently, is scientific-social networking and associated funding. But it will come, in time. But, that does not restrict others from also capitalising on this new frontier of theory and research.

    Check this out though:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...dimension.html

    I can see where he stops short of getting the theory of everything, like with Einstein: they both struggle in the neuromathematics department.

    Basically, what Bars is proposing, I have applied "neuromathematics" to. What he fails to properly organise, currently, is how to properly PERCEIVE the new dimension of time. With neuromathematics though, I am able to fairly easily overcome that problem. My schooling in Medicine was very useful in that department.

    Bars proposes the following:

    emphasize symmetries and supersymmetries in much of my research on particle physics, field theory and string theory. From time to time the symmetry structures in physics have led me to discover new physical concepts, such as Two-Time Physics (2T-Physics), as well as a few new structures in Mathematics or Mathematical Physics, in particular in supergroups, non-compact groups, and noncommutative geometry. This activity also took me on side trips into applications of symmetries in other fields of physics. Consequently, supersymmetry in nuclear physics was experimentally confirmed as an approximate symmetry of bosonic and fermionic nuclei.

    I am able to replace the idea of symmetries and super-symmetries with the algorithm of perception, our neuromathematics.

    He's on the right track, though, except symmetries and super-symmetries ultimately paint the logic of "duality", which I have thoroughly and completely employed.


    (Apologies for this double post)


    Ophiolite, you must sense though in having read the artice that Bars himself was a little concerned about the "new equations" through the employment of an extra dimension of time.

    What if I could prove to Bars that I am able to prove the equations for a sphere and circle using that extra dimension for time? Would that be convincing? That the use of two dimensions of time can arrive at the equations for a sphere and circle in that space-time graph?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    Stream, you know what your problem is, you suck in the advertising department.

    I mean, no one likes you, in this forum.

    Even the Moderator hates you.

    It's because you are a poor communicator.

    You don't know how to start a conversation, on their side of the fence, and then take them over to realising yours.

    But you've screwed your chance here, because no one can trust you anymore.

    First impressions last, even with scientists.

    Even if you are right, you are vastly proving you pay little attention to being the diplomat.

    You haven't even maped this forum. You haven't even taken a look at whhho the kooks are, who the genuine scientists are. Man, it seems you are willing to talk to anyone. How long has it been since you have played the school yard, the school yard rules. You're not cool in talking to anyone and everyone. You need buddies.

    Even the big boys play the game that way. It's cald "school networking", the "boys club". I am guessing you have no "school networking", no "boys club" zoning with this thing.

    Am I right or am I right?

    Hell will freeze over first before anyone reads your book if you are not a part of a boys club.

    Ohhhhhhh the tragedy of it if I am right.

    I tell you what, I'll try to be your friend. Maybe some of my magic will rub off onto you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Max.

    You make a good point.

    W@ithout being too blunt, without using the echo machine "for your information", I have taken it on good advice to not be associated to the "boys club" network on this one.

    It was suggested to me, given the magnitude of the theory, to be the BIG FAT "0" in the "boys club dpt".

    Why?

    The concept of someone offering a potential G.U.T. has the potential to standardise one boys club from another.

    It was suggested to me to be completely neutral, a "ghost".

    So, I have played the ghost. I have been a ghost to my colleagues, my friends, my family, all for this damn theory and the suggestions made to me on "properly" offering it.

    Ohhhhhhh boooo hoooooo hooooooo, oooohhhhhhhh booooo hoooo hoooooooooo.........wwwwaaaaaaaaa.........the humanity of it.

    As you can tell, I am sticking to my required manner of presentation.

    You see, I can be your friend, but you will still feel like you are dealing with a ghost, an "apparition", a figment of your imagination. Basically, the author of a theory on space-time that proposes reality can be imagined, can be a figment of one's imagination, you see, that poor bastard has to play the role of ghost. It sucks, I know, but it has it;s perks. You see, the closest thing to being alive while being a ghost, is being out of reach.............covert. I am thinking this is the closest anyone will get to having a proper conversation with me, publically, "publically", in regard to this book. Smell the coffee, babe.

    You see, if I am involved in a boys club, the chances are it's out of reach of the general public, and the government will deny it's very existence. You can handle that, right?

    Still, thank you. But, as I pointed out to lookingForRecruits, I am not here to promote "myself" or "my book", I am here to assess the leverage and attitude of this new axiom structure of space-time. Basically, if the theory is rejected, time and time again, by an audience such as this, it gives my ghost agency more "out of reach" capability, more "stealth" potential. Sounds wacky, but tell me, "who" am I. Where in the book do I make it known "who" I am? I don't. I am not saying I "am" a ghost, I am saying that the concept of being able to "theorise" space-time, to imagine it, has it's consequences, namely, the issue of reality being an imagination, an apparition.

    As the author, I get to do something with any potential "apparition", clandestine, "ghost", "boys club".

    Read the thread I had with lookingForRecruits, and then ask yourself on what constitutes a clandestine agency. Then ask again why I couldn't give a fourex if no one wants to read the damn theory.

    To be honest, I haven't spoken "personally", citing myself, about this book in public, and I don't think I ever will. One of the positive features about promoting the theory in this forum was that I could assist people "get there", for them to work on it themsleves, not "moi".

    As you can tell, explaining the theory is stage 1. It's preschool stuff. I don't want to be caught talking to kids while other issues more relevant to security are beckoning my attention, as any clandestine agency would know.

    (reel George Bush, kindergarten, 11th September, 2001).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    Wo there, buddy.

    What speaks of thou, frau?

    You're dreaminnnnnnn.

    If your theory is right, they will find you; above or below the ground, they will find you.

    But, the way you promote it, no one will know it's right, if it is. You create your anonymity that way, yaaaaa, but you gain naaaaaaathing.

    I see your strategy though, if you are right, and you like that agency road (sick of the idol pathway, right???): be as unlikeable as possible, well, to the scientific community, earn the respect of what you call an agency, who presumably are more "outside the square" thinkers, and then officially present your official anonymity because you received so much crap from people like the ones in this forum, you finally said, "that's it, never again, screw you" to the scientific community in general, while being involved in cutting edge research agencies the public have no clue of other than through their mind's eye (and who is going to trust that).

    Nice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    Go on.

    Let me guess: if I can't say something on your behalf yet, go on.

    Let me say something on your behalf.

    Can I give you a glimpse?

    You're arguing that any people, any constitution, with a brain in its head, would convince you not to go "public" with the book, personally, to let it speak for itself, for you to not be the official author, to be the title "streamsystems" instead, so you can work unfetted with a development agency not worried about pedantic issues, avoiding times like when people can be when the wind blows up their skirt, as you may have witnessed many times by now.

    Buddy. You're killin me. Throw me a line. C'mon. Do you want me to be the one to laugh you out the forum? No. Please don't. You have potential.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Reel George Bush, Kindergarten, 11th September 2001.

    If Einstein were alive today, he would be a party clown to physicists wanting to grow up, by the public demand, by the media's reckoning.

    Take an old man and make a star out of him: you can go one of two ways, comedy or tragedy. I'll take the tragic road any day..........there is no dignity in being old and making people laugh. If one was to make a person laugh, use a feather duster, because compared to the responsibility needed in handling a "valid theory of gravity" you may as well use a feather duster to make people laugh, and be honest about that.

    Sorry, that sounded deep. But one of the great "wow" zones of contemporary science is that philosophers, whatever they call themselves, have failed to postulate all the social implications of handling a precise understanding of the atom, including gravity.

    Can anyone seriously trace the author of that book?

    The intro and ending regarding the possible author could be a complete crock of shite. The author could be Morpheus, for all anyone is concerned.

    How can ANYONE prove who the author is?

    I could have downloaded the theory from the internet, and then just spun story after story on it. Think about it: the more I am asked to cross-reference it with physics, the more it gets LOST in physics, the more NOTABLE it becomes that there "is" no uniquely identifiable author.

    I see the path ahead of me, gentleman, and it is anonymity......officially. Unofficially, who knows. As I have no official background in physics, the more I am asked to cross-reference it with physics, the more anonymous I become: I become officially what I am to physics......nothing. Unofficially, I am what physicsts suspect, some mysterious issue in some mysterious hanger in some mysterious desert. But that doesn't kill me, it just makes me a virtual ghost. Now consider the communication mechanics that many have been enduring in this forum on the issue of the theory in question. It works like clockwork.

    The only thing not making me anonymous is gaining a degree in physics. The thing is, though.......I won't. Impossible. Using the two-time dimension theory makes the 1-time dimension theory so retarded, I don't think I could go through that psycho hemi-paresis angst again.

    If I am questioned based on the evidence I have in my possession regarding the theory, it will go straight to an intelligence agency, it is that well-constructed. I have over 28,000 pages of information derived from the theory relevant to the greater theory of space-time and the strategy of the theoretical perception-reference of space-time. If I am found with that, in the context of the theory being accurate, that information I have will automatically be politically quarantined by a Government that has the balls to investigate the issue. Or, I could say I am such a kook, how could anyone like me come up with anything of remark to the greater workings of atomic physics. Either way, officially I am anonymous in regard to the book. Basically, the fortress that has been built around the book in regard to the author has made the author invisible, an agency hologram. The only people who will find the author are the ones who have the ability not to mistake their own brilliance for a greater brilliance: "Trust".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    I'm not convinced.

    You have forgotten one thing.

    MONEY.

    You can be bought, LURED.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Max.

    You know the market, as an advertiser, as the best of them.

    No one knows "jack" about how the market is playing, person to person: there are no two tyrants in this world bargaining with one another for the system to be known complete person-to-person, financially speaking….it is far too complex (and the concept of a small number of people (1, 2, 3) has been rationed from wealth according to Masonic constructions in time).

    But, a new science offering a new technology, is new investment. I am not an investor.

    Think about it: there is NO WAY I am going to be the social science butterfly. You would have to be in Disneyland to think I am on walkabout in the social physics lab: Dreaming…….Dreamtime.

    It can’t be bought. It's free. That's the point of offering it for free. It can't be bought, and nor can I.

    No one knows the market well enough for this issue (of certain investment development) to be predicted, let alone industrially "known": it is agency-compatible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    And if no one does anything?

    Tell me; how do you perceive that power?
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by maxHeadroom
    It's because you are a poor communicator.
    In one of the many memorable scenes in Casablanca Peter Lorre's character approaches Humprhey Bogart who is playing chess with himself in his bar. Lorre trys to strike up a conversation with Bogart, but is rebuffed. Sounding a little perplexed he addresses Bogart, "You despise me Rick, don't you?"
    Bogart replies, "I suppose I would if I thought about it."

    That's pretty much where I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by looking4recruits
    And if no one does anything?

    Tell me; how do you perceive that power?

    If no one does anything, if no one thinks about it, I guess people are content running around in smaller circles than the one offered......society becomes a three-ringed circus, people vie for fame in that circus, because the stage is their only escape, not a real understanding of space-time heralding a new dimension of transport.

    Ahhhhhhhm wwwaaaaaaaaa, booooooooo wooooooo hooooooooo.

    Like who cares.

    Anyway, the story I have told may as well be just that, a story. Carry on with your "fame-focussed" lives. It is the alternative to the real stage. Nothing wrong with the stage, but as we know, when science meets the stage, it's a little too "fiction" for the real theorist's liking.

    You see, I don't think play school will be the first to design the idea of hyperspace flight. And the eventuality of it, I don't think industry will be the first to employ it. I think if it is employed, if it is used, a Government agency will do it;s best to research all assciated features of that discovery, for the protection of their people, and of course for their more refined advantage. After the discovery, it maye take many years before word gets out, officially.Well, it will.

    What am I doing?

    Checking out stuff, like "is the science community mature enough, in understanding society, to know what the most appropriate path to take is, for the people"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Why did you blurt everything out? We are not happy
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    What I blurted out is minor.

    The game is bigger than you can imagine.

    The responsibility required for soceity to get up to speed ASAP is paramount.

    You seek a type of ecofriendly energy resource, fine: I don't want to be the one who is accused for hiding that brief.

    I blurted it out because I have found a way of calling it quits, officially, and this is part of the process, without benig irresponsible. There is no other path ahead, there is no infrastructure for the theory to be understood and accepted any other way.

    But, if I can ask, what were you happy about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman looking4recruits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    93
    Stream is right.

    The author needs to be out of the limelight.

    The limelight is an unecessary risk to public misperception.

    Mork relevant work can be done while the iron is hot, away from the fame pathway.

    The author needs to consolidate with those who consider themsleves to be the main players of security-tech-energy development: they need that priority before the author is forced to become an idol-clown for the people.
    if ever there was a time for opportunity, it is when opportunity has yet to define THIS "time"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    I wont lie to you: I took a gamble in telling the truth.

    When you look at how this social world is constructed, money is a high risk thing. The foundations of the principals of this society is not based on money. To make money is essentially a risk. Those who make the most money in this world take the greatest yet most calculated risks.

    Now, who can accuse me of not presenting a calculated framework for the presentation of this theory? Who can accuse me of not taking a risk?

    For me, the risk was accepting that there now needs to be a consortium who can handle the theory, officially, because I won't. I can't. no one would "like" a scientific whiz to explain everything. I hate scientific whiz's who explain everything, so I wouldn't do it to any of you.

    Work it out.

    Get to it.

    You see, I don't want anything from this as people would understand or fear. Understand that. I have what I want. My current research with the theory keeps me occupied with what I am interested in, which has little to do with what everyone else is doing. It is more contemplative, and it can't be proved until it is lived, useless to anyone. It is based on risk assessment. It is a useless thing to explain, it has to be lived.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So hire an actor. The author can go about his/her business and let the actor spew catchfrases and paint pictures of the far future. This thread can be quoted later.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Consider yourself hired. All that you or anyone else needs to do is read the theory, or any theory better, and post a speculation, suggest an idea, offer ideas, share ideas. God only knows I have tried.

    But be warned, as I know too well, there ain't no money in it.

    There is no dignity in giving good ideas away fro free, and with all I have offered, ZILTCH has been offered. That has been the case for so long, it is standard. If I want to survive in this tech-jungle, I need to take risks relevant to my survival, a little beyond the park bench.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    Me tooooooooooooooo.

    The golden rule of successful advertising is, like da da da, to create the awareness of oneself associated to stuff, the ones that work. Obviously the idea of hiding one's "mine mine mine" to something never gets a person anywhere, because eventually people will say, "you never advertised you were on that team".

    Stream. I see what you are doing. You're not hiding. You're going for the sky-heights. You are advertising your placement in a place away from the sicophants, ideally in a practical cutting edge level.

    I think it is safer for me to put up my hand and say "count me in" than not. You have too many strings other theories can't attach.

    Watching this debate go on, Ha, I sometimes wonder how some of the forum members will get themsleves out of the bind they are putting themselves in by emphatically saying you are wrong.

    Wouldn't like to be in their ship.

    Nooooooooo way.

    Still, stream, you need to find a way of giving them another chance, of getting out of the corner they have put themselves in. Go on, be a sport. Weigh them in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    For a while I thought they were being cynical. I thought they were just poking and probing to have some fun. But some serious patterns of consistent refusal to reason with the theory of two-times made me think they are now beginning to wave a single-time flag, for all time. They have a way of escaping the corner they are putting themselves in, and it's called "find another profession". A scientist must always be objective, rational, and always on the look out for phenomena and theories not yet properly explored, in treating it with the utmost respect. If they want to wear the confidence of "all-knowingness" without the grand theory of space-time, let them. They show their age though: young and full of enthusiasm: nothing wrong with that. They are defending their profession like good ensigns. Still, one of their real commanders of opinion needs to step in and highlight to them that science is ALWAYS on the look out for new theories that can better explain knotted testaments.

    80 to 90% of the posts in this forum are either "hits from the bong", crack-pot, or kids looking for answers they couldn't be bothered finding elsewhere, or more precisely, couldn't read the text properly in science books because they were too busy daydreaming in class earlier that day. I don't respond to any of those posts. I get in trouble though with the moderators because I weigh in on that other 10 or so percent that really throws the line into a theory that has yet to officially stabilise in the scientific community, and that pisses those who have a degree "off". Basically, I come into this forum, I weigh in on the heavy weight threads, and then I am told to piss off because the angle I approach the subject from is not taught at University. That's the sad bit. They don't ASK me my back-ground. They "assume" every new idea is wrong because it is crackpot. That's not science. That's not being scientific. ASK QUESTIONS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Just out of interest Max, have YOU read the theory?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    80 to 90% of the posts in this forum are either "hits from the bong", crack-pot, or kids looking for answers they couldn't be bothered finding elsewhere, or more precisely, couldn't read the text properly in science books because they were too busy daydreaming in class earlier that day. I don't respond to any of those posts. I get in trouble though with the moderators because I weigh in on that other 10 or so percent that really throws the line into a theory that has yet to officially stabilise in the scientific community, and that pisses those who have a degree "off". Basically, I come into this forum, I weigh in on the heavy weight threads, and then I am told to piss off because the angle I approach the subject from is not taught at University. That's the sad bit. They don't ASK me my back-ground. They "assume" every new idea is wrong because it is crackpot. That's not science. That's not being scientific. ASK QUESTIONS.
    Sorry, I just can't help myself, but you get in trouble because you step into every serious thread and basically say "This is my theory. Lets talk about it instead." That makes you look very bad in most peoples minds. When people come to the forum with a serious question, they rarely want an answer that isn't from established science whether or not it's right or wrong. (Example.) Also, in other threads you simply attempt to derail them by posting a bunch of flaming nonsense. (Example.)

    After all that, you've basically ground any credibility you might have had into the ground. Now if anyone sees your name attached to anything, they automatically think "Oh it's him again." Sorry, but it's the truth. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to reconsider how you go about presenting yourself. Among the first things you'll have to deal with is the fact that most people don't want answers from 'theoretical universe A' when they are asking questions about 'theoretical universe 1'. Second would be to play nice even when no one else is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    80 to 90% of the posts in this forum are either "hits from the bong", crack-pot, or kids looking for answers they couldn't be bothered finding elsewhere, or more precisely, couldn't read the text properly in science books because they were too busy daydreaming in class earlier that day. I don't respond to any of those posts. I get in trouble though with the moderators because I weigh in on that other 10 or so percent that really throws the line into a theory that has yet to officially stabilise in the scientific community, and that pisses those who have a degree "off". Basically, I come into this forum, I weigh in on the heavy weight threads, and then I am told to piss off because the angle I approach the subject from is not taught at University. That's the sad bit. They don't ASK me my back-ground. They "assume" every new idea is wrong because it is crackpot. That's not science. That's not being scientific. ASK QUESTIONS.
    Sorry, I just can't help myself, but you get in trouble because you step into every serious thread and basically say "This is my theory. Lets talk about it instead." That makes you look very bad in most peoples minds. When people come to the forum with a serious question, they rarely want an answer that isn't from established science whether or not it's right or wrong. (Example.) Also, in other threads you simply attempt to derail them by posting a bunch of flaming nonsense. (Example.)

    After all that, you've basically ground any credibility you might have had into the ground. Now if anyone sees your name attached to anything, they automatically think "Oh it's him again." Sorry, but it's the truth. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to reconsider how you go about presenting yourself. Among the first things you'll have to deal with is the fact that most people don't want answers from 'theoretical universe A' when they are asking questions about 'theoretical universe 1'. Second would be to play nice even when no one else is.

    If I can review all the serious threads I have weighed in on, and frankly, you were looking for non-existent answers, officially, hence I decided to offer a more realistic answer via an alternative approach to time. You were asking questions even pop-science doesn't go so far to say as is said in this forum. Then I weigh in.

    I think you guys need to realise exactly what is pop-science and what is mainstream. It seems to me most of you are experts at popular-science magazines and latest releases, but fail to understand what is judged by the Nobel society as a real development of scientific theory. Maybe some of you should look at the standard Nobel prizes are judged on, and not what the student-pop-critic defines as pie.

    In specific answer to your questions, the propulsion system using matter-antimatter was ludicrous, straight out of star-trek. I was returning the compliment, like, "c'mon, you can't be serious, you've posted some good threads, why do this". And light having momentum, well, given the posts you had made, I thought you were intelligent enough to know the difference between light and the curvature of space-time, and what takes precedence. Light bends because it has momentum? I knew you were getting to something, unless you are one of those oh so boring posters who ask questions they already know the answer to?????? Maybe? I didn't take you for one of those freaks who ask questions in already knowing the answer (well, what you presume to be the answer which is in fact POP-science), just to seem important. I mean, we're here to cut to the chase, right?

    I'll be honest with you. I am not a freak who HAS the ANSWER. I have a theory that answers more questions in the context of space-time than contemporary science has, and I find that a little weird. I wouldn't mind discussing those results. Pinch me, someone. ARE they in fact results? I still have had no answer on that issue. Nearly six months down this road, and frankly I am not the one cursing myself in being unsuccessful communicating with you guys on a logical level.

    But, you guys can be really funny at times. Your enthusiasm for science, the way you approach it, is admirable. Your terms, your "lol's", the whole thing. It's a hoot. But, there still is a very serious issue at hand, namely, "do you want to take the risk of being wrong in saying I am wrong without investigating the issue". If you do, so be it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Just out of interest Max, have YOU read the theory?
    I AMMMMMM the theory.

    I know an opportunity when I see one.

    That's my job.

    Ask me a question about it.

    What theory are you referring to?

    Is it a theory?

    How do you know.

    It could be a very long statement.

    It could be the end of linear time as we know it.

    It could be a very long obiturary about the end of linear time.

    "Theory" is such a simple term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    But, you guys can be really funny at times. Your enthusiasm for science, the way you approach it, is admirable. Your terms, your "lol's", the whole thing. It's a hoot. But, there still is a very serious issue at hand, namely, "do you want to take the risk of being wrong in saying I am wrong without investigating the issue". If you do, so be it.
    Let's get something very clear at the start of this post. I am not wearing my moderator hat. For the purposes of this post any of the other moderators can censure me, ban me, locate my my residence and burn it to the ground. I hope that is clear. I don't want another tranche of posts where you whine about the moderators having it in for you, etc, etc. This is Ophiolite speaking not a moderator. Clear?

    Point 1: Despite dozens of comments to the effect that your theory, as laid out on your website, is a disconnected, rambling, insubstantial, cacophony of verbal diahorea, you have made no effort whatsoever, either on that site, or in this forum to clarify your intent. That tells me you are either not serious about getting your message across, or are intellectually more challenged than a stuffed armadillo.

    Point 2: Your nonsense about the eye of Ra providing evidence that the ancient Egyptians understood aerodynmaics was wholly refuted on this site, yet remains in a keynote position in your website. So you are no intrested in constructive dialogue. You just want to keep promoting your agenda even when the contents of that agenda have been shown to be faulty. That tells me tht either you are decitful, or have the mental age of a pubescent grasshopper.

    Point 3: Your interminable prattling on about security and society and government and the status quo bears all the hallmarks of the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Such people should be accorded all the disdain that humanity can heap upon them. Demonstrate that you are not sucvh a person by posting a balanced, sane account of .. well, almost anything.

    Point 4: Stop tallking in ***ing riddles. Speak directly and to the point. Be done with the pseudo intellectual meanderings that might have a place in a John Updike novel, but are wholly misplaced whent you are, supposedly, trying to convince poeple of something.


    Kalster - brilliant question to Max. Loved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    But, you guys can be really funny at times. Your enthusiasm for science, the way you approach it, is admirable. Your terms, your "lol's", the whole thing. It's a hoot. But, there still is a very serious issue at hand, namely, "do you want to take the risk of being wrong in saying I am wrong without investigating the issue". If you do, so be it.
    Let's get something very clear at the start of this post. I am not wearing my moderator hat. For the purposes of this post any of the other moderators can censure me, ban me, locate my my residence and burn it to the ground. I hope that is clear. I don't want another tranche of posts where you whine about the moderators having it in for you, etc, etc. This is Ophiolite speaking not a moderator. Clear?

    Point 1: Despite dozens of comments to the effect that your theory, as laid out on your website, is a disconnected, rambling, insubstantial, cacophony of verbal diahorea, you have made no effort whatsoever, either on that site, or in this forum to clarify your intent. That tells me you are either not serious about getting your message across, or are intellectually more challenged than a stuffed armadillo.

    Point 2: Your nonsense about the eye of Ra providing evidence that the ancient Egyptians understood aerodynmaics was wholly refuted on this site, yet remains in a keynote position in your website. So you are no intrested in constructive dialogue. You just want to keep promoting your agenda even when the contents of that agenda have been shown to be faulty. That tells me tht either you are decitful, or have the mental age of a pubescent grasshopper.

    Point 3: Your interminable prattling on about security and society and government and the status quo bears all the hallmarks of the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Such people should be accorded all the disdain that humanity can heap upon them. Demonstrate that you are not sucvh a person by posting a balanced, sane account of .. well, almost anything.

    Point 4: Stop tallking in ***ing riddles. Speak directly and to the point. Be done with the pseudo intellectual meanderings that might have a place in a John Updike novel, but are wholly misplaced whent you are, supposedly, trying to convince poeple of something.


    Kalster - brilliant question to Max. Loved it.


    Superb.

    I enjoyed your response even more.

    But that is just not my point of these posts, enjoying responses like that.

    It seems you have not taken advantage of the "latest download", 25th edition by now, which actually is rewired, readdressed, relevant to the feedback of this forum.

    I apologise for not mentioning that.

    You see, from the feedback of this forum, I have gladly complied and answered all the questions asked of me by including it, those answers, in the upgraded download.

    You obviously have one of the first editions that you are still rumbling through. Sorry.

    I thought it would be more logical to answer your questions by actually addressing the issue, and not my need to prove myself right in this forum, officially.......you know, by upgrading the theory, THAT being the issue.

    You see, you all made it obvious to me you weren't willing to "chat".

    I have noticed though that in not properly defending myself by directly answering your questions in this forum, I have pumped up your egos. Yet, I have tried to burst those bubbles whenever necessary, as you would know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Stream.

    I understand how difficult your case can be.

    You don't stand up for your ideas on the symbolism of Egypt, for instance.

    Recent illustrations of the Egyptian book of the dead highlight the greater than 50% liklihood that the then images were not understood by the people, that they were an instruction. From what is not the issue. Your case, it would seem, is that the Egyptians did NOT understand the symbolism of winged flight, let alone the symbol of Ra, that it was an "imprint" on their awareness and reasoning, a seed.

    For instance, there is a heiroglyph of monkeys dressed, of all things, worshipping a heavenly deity, gathered around a small pyramid. That suggests a clear interference in monkey-to-human evolution. It could also suggest faith is for monkeys, but in light of other cicumstantial evidence of worship of the time, that is clearly not the case. It is also possible the then Egytpians fantacised about monkey's being as intelligent as them, but they clearly gave up on that one, right?

    You have been misunderstood; there is no doubt about that.



    How about that for talking to myself.

    It's a way I can explain myself in the context of no one showing interest, right?

    Sometimes thinking out aloud ideas too difficult and time-consuming to wait for someone else to join in can aide the "thought provoking" process. Sometimes deception "can" be used as a tool to serve a greater purpose, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    You have been misunderstood; there is no doubt about that.
    THalf of the time I am convinced your problem is that you have been understood too well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That tells me that .... you .... have the mental age of a pubescent grasshopper.
    Would you mind awfully if I added this to my (quite considerable) list of "implied ad hominens" (your phrase)? You must work hard to come up with such gems. It's lovely!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    80 to 90% of the posts in this forum are either "hits from the bong", crack-pot, or kids looking for answers they couldn't be bothered finding elsewhere, or more precisely, couldn't read the text properly in science books because they were too busy daydreaming in class earlier that day. I don't respond to any of those posts. I get in trouble though with the moderators because I weigh in on that other 10 or so percent that really throws the line into a theory that has yet to officially stabilise in the scientific community, and that pisses those who have a degree "off". Basically, I come into this forum, I weigh in on the heavy weight threads, and then I am told to piss off because the angle I approach the subject from is not taught at University. That's the sad bit. They don't ASK me my back-ground. They "assume" every new idea is wrong because it is crackpot. That's not science. That's not being scientific. ASK QUESTIONS.
    Sorry, I just can't help myself, but you get in trouble because you step into every serious thread and basically say "This is my theory. Lets talk about it instead." That makes you look very bad in most peoples minds. When people come to the forum with a serious question, they rarely want an answer that isn't from established science whether or not it's right or wrong. (Example.) Also, in other threads you simply attempt to derail them by posting a bunch of flaming nonsense. (Example.)

    After all that, you've basically ground any credibility you might have had into the ground. Now if anyone sees your name attached to anything, they automatically think "Oh it's him again." Sorry, but it's the truth. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to reconsider how you go about presenting yourself. Among the first things you'll have to deal with is the fact that most people don't want answers from 'theoretical universe A' when they are asking questions about 'theoretical universe 1'. Second would be to play nice even when no one else is.

    In specific answer to your questions, the propulsion system using matter-antimatter was ludicrous, straight out of star-trek. I was returning the compliment, like, "c'mon, you can't be serious, you've posted some good threads, why do this". And light having momentum, well, given the posts you had made, I thought you were intelligent enough to know the difference between light and the curvature of space-time, and what takes precedence. Light bends because it has momentum? I knew you were getting to something, unless you are one of those oh so boring posters who ask questions they already know the answer to?????? Maybe? I didn't take you for one of those freaks who ask questions in already knowing the answer (well, what you presume to be the answer which is in fact POP-science), just to seem important. I mean, we're here to cut to the chase, right?
    Before I end all further contact with this thread, I'd just like to point out that neither of the examples I posted were my own threads, nor did I even post in either of them. I was simply using them as an example. (And BTW, antimatter isn't from Star Trek. They stole the idea from real physics.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    80 to 90% of the posts in this forum are either "hits from the bong", crack-pot, or kids looking for answers they couldn't be bothered finding elsewhere, or more precisely, couldn't read the text properly in science books because they were too busy daydreaming in class earlier that day. I don't respond to any of those posts. I get in trouble though with the moderators because I weigh in on that other 10 or so percent that really throws the line into a theory that has yet to officially stabilise in the scientific community, and that pisses those who have a degree "off". Basically, I come into this forum, I weigh in on the heavy weight threads, and then I am told to piss off because the angle I approach the subject from is not taught at University. That's the sad bit. They don't ASK me my back-ground. They "assume" every new idea is wrong because it is crackpot. That's not science. That's not being scientific. ASK QUESTIONS.
    Sorry, I just can't help myself, but you get in trouble because you step into every serious thread and basically say "This is my theory. Lets talk about it instead." That makes you look very bad in most peoples minds. When people come to the forum with a serious question, they rarely want an answer that isn't from established science whether or not it's right or wrong. (Example.) Also, in other threads you simply attempt to derail them by posting a bunch of flaming nonsense. (Example.)

    After all that, you've basically ground any credibility you might have had into the ground. Now if anyone sees your name attached to anything, they automatically think "Oh it's him again." Sorry, but it's the truth. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to reconsider how you go about presenting yourself. Among the first things you'll have to deal with is the fact that most people don't want answers from 'theoretical universe A' when they are asking questions about 'theoretical universe 1'. Second would be to play nice even when no one else is.

    In specific answer to your questions, the propulsion system using matter-antimatter was ludicrous, straight out of star-trek. I was returning the compliment, like, "c'mon, you can't be serious, you've posted some good threads, why do this". And light having momentum, well, given the posts you had made, I thought you were intelligent enough to know the difference between light and the curvature of space-time, and what takes precedence. Light bends because it has momentum? I knew you were getting to something, unless you are one of those oh so boring posters who ask questions they already know the answer to?????? Maybe? I didn't take you for one of those freaks who ask questions in already knowing the answer (well, what you presume to be the answer which is in fact POP-science), just to seem important. I mean, we're here to cut to the chase, right?
    Before I end all further contact with this thread, I'd just like to point out that neither of the examples I posted were my own threads, nor did I even post in either of them. I was simply using them as an example. (And BTW, antimatter isn't from Star Trek. They stole the idea from real physics.)

    I was referring to the use of antimatter, and the like mentioned, in the manner of jetison from a craft, as with nuclear jet-propulsion. Don't get me wrong, Star Trek is great. I think of it more philosophical, a stage, than science. It's more useful that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That tells me that .... you .... have the mental age of a pubescent grasshopper.
    Would you mind awfully if I added this to my (quite considerable) list of "implied ad hominens" (your phrase)? You must work hard to come up with such gems. It's lovely!.

    Guitarist. You post useful threads for some of the kids here willing to embrace mathematics for the first time in regard to A level theoretical physics. I am sure they don't want someone as noble as yourself being the sycophant laughing hyena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That tells me that .... you .... have the mental age of a pubescent grasshopper.
    Would you mind awfully if I added this to my (quite considerable) list of "implied ad hominens" (your phrase)? You must work hard to come up with such gems. It's lovely!.
    You are too kind.
    It is simply the application of a basic humour algorithm I learnt from watching Black Adder. (A plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and make it Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.) I find it preferable to using tired old cliches (such as the phrase tired old cliches).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Black Adder.

    The "Prince".

    Pity it was and still is useless, officially.....today.

    Unofficially, though; that's a different matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •