|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:28 pm
Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 hmm..... well he also asked multiple of his clients the same questions to verify the data.Example(not from the book, this is a randomly generated question): --------In 5 separate sessions the man asked the 5 --------different people with no form of communication with --------each other and with out revealing any data from --------previous sessions to the people he's talking to the --------same question to which they all responded the --------same. With all the answers being the same though worded differently but still describing the same things I doubt this is a coincidence. The book convinced me so that is what I believe in. Well...I put the info in it through my mind trying to figure everything out and when I did figure how it's all possible with my understanding of physics I made that my belief. Also I don't think this is like the SRA. That's not a randomly generated question. That's not even a question. And five people is hardly statistically significant. Aside from that, there are multiple reasons why five different people might answer a question in a vaguely similar way. Not the least of which the fact that the person performing the experiments (and you) want them to be vaguely similar. It doesn't mean his theory is true. You should really try to be more skeptical. It sounds like you've been taken in by a quack. Of course you don't think that this is like SRA. Because you believe in the stuff from the book, while you (presumably) don't believe in SRA. But it sounds similar to it, or to other forms of false memory syndrome. ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:36 pm
The Iron Magus Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 hmm..... well he also asked multiple of his clients the same questions to verify the data.Example(not from the book, this is a randomly generated question): --------In 5 separate sessions the man asked the 5 --------different people with no form of communication with --------each other and with out revealing any data from --------previous sessions to the people he's talking to the --------same question to which they all responded the --------same. With all the answers being the same though worded differently but still describing the same things I doubt this is a coincidence. The book convinced me so that is what I believe in. Well...I put the info in it through my mind trying to figure everything out and when I did figure how it's all possible with my understanding of physics I made that my belief. Also I don't think this is like the SRA. That's not a randomly generated question. That's not even a question. And five people is hardly statistically significant. Aside from that, there are multiple reasons why five different people might answer a question in a vaguely similar way. Not the least of which the fact that the person performing the experiments (and you) want them to be vaguely similar. It doesn't mean his theory is true. You should really try to be more skeptical. It sounds like you've been taken in by a quack. Of course you don't think that this is like SRA. Because you believe in the stuff from the book, while you (presumably) don't believe in SRA. But it sounds similar to it, or to other forms of false memory syndrome. ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced. I don't think he's a crackpot, all the other quantum physisist are wrong and I'm not unbalanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:41 pm
Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 hmm..... well he also asked multiple of his clients the same questions to verify the data.Example(not from the book, this is a randomly generated question): --------In 5 separate sessions the man asked the 5 --------different people with no form of communication with --------each other and with out revealing any data from --------previous sessions to the people he's talking to the --------same question to which they all responded the --------same. With all the answers being the same though worded differently but still describing the same things I doubt this is a coincidence. The book convinced me so that is what I believe in. Well...I put the info in it through my mind trying to figure everything out and when I did figure how it's all possible with my understanding of physics I made that my belief. Also I don't think this is like the SRA. That's not a randomly generated question. That's not even a question. And five people is hardly statistically significant. Aside from that, there are multiple reasons why five different people might answer a question in a vaguely similar way. Not the least of which the fact that the person performing the experiments (and you) want them to be vaguely similar. It doesn't mean his theory is true. You should really try to be more skeptical. It sounds like you've been taken in by a quack. Of course you don't think that this is like SRA. Because you believe in the stuff from the book, while you (presumably) don't believe in SRA. But it sounds similar to it, or to other forms of false memory syndrome. ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced. I don't think he's a crackpot, all the other quantum physisist are wrong and I'm not unbalanced. Prove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:41 pm
Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 hmm..... well he also asked multiple of his clients the same questions to verify the data.Example(not from the book, this is a randomly generated question): --------In 5 separate sessions the man asked the 5 --------different people with no form of communication with --------each other and with out revealing any data from --------previous sessions to the people he's talking to the --------same question to which they all responded the --------same. With all the answers being the same though worded differently but still describing the same things I doubt this is a coincidence. The book convinced me so that is what I believe in. Well...I put the info in it through my mind trying to figure everything out and when I did figure how it's all possible with my understanding of physics I made that my belief. Also I don't think this is like the SRA. That's not a randomly generated question. That's not even a question. And five people is hardly statistically significant. Aside from that, there are multiple reasons why five different people might answer a question in a vaguely similar way. Not the least of which the fact that the person performing the experiments (and you) want them to be vaguely similar. It doesn't mean his theory is true. You should really try to be more skeptical. It sounds like you've been taken in by a quack. Of course you don't think that this is like SRA. Because you believe in the stuff from the book, while you (presumably) don't believe in SRA. But it sounds similar to it, or to other forms of false memory syndrome. ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced. I don't think he's a crackpot, all the other quantum physisist are wrong and I'm not unbalanced. I see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:46 pm
Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:49 pm
Yeata Zi Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 hmm..... well he also asked multiple of his clients the same questions to verify the data.Example(not from the book, this is a randomly generated question): --------In 5 separate sessions the man asked the 5 --------different people with no form of communication with --------each other and with out revealing any data from --------previous sessions to the people he's talking to the --------same question to which they all responded the --------same. With all the answers being the same though worded differently but still describing the same things I doubt this is a coincidence. The book convinced me so that is what I believe in. Well...I put the info in it through my mind trying to figure everything out and when I did figure how it's all possible with my understanding of physics I made that my belief. Also I don't think this is like the SRA. That's not a randomly generated question. That's not even a question. And five people is hardly statistically significant. Aside from that, there are multiple reasons why five different people might answer a question in a vaguely similar way. Not the least of which the fact that the person performing the experiments (and you) want them to be vaguely similar. It doesn't mean his theory is true. You should really try to be more skeptical. It sounds like you've been taken in by a quack. Of course you don't think that this is like SRA. Because you believe in the stuff from the book, while you (presumably) don't believe in SRA. But it sounds similar to it, or to other forms of false memory syndrome. ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced. I don't think he's a crackpot, all the other quantum physisist are wrong and I'm not unbalanced. Prove it. I use science to make my theories instead of making predictions with math like the universe is a computer or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. -edit- Also... why are there more "positron" than "electron" particles in your Quagmite? You know... since they're making up an electron? That doesn't make sense to me. Especially since one electron completely cancels out the charge in one proton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:56 pm
Laff70 Yeata Zi Laff70 The Iron Magus Laff70 ME not skeptical??? I came up with an alternate theory about mostly everything in quantum physics. Don't you think I'd evaluate this theory(which I did extensively) before believing in it??? I know how dimensions interact with each other. I know what the structural differences of the matter in different dimensions are. I've figured out possible structure of the multiverse(if there is one) and what splits a universe apart into two separate universes. I even know the make up of electrons!!! I AM SKEPTICAL!!! So, you disregarded an entire established scientific discipline, despite its volumes of research, but you accept the crackpot hypothesis of one psychologist who got a book published. To me, that doesn't sound skeptical. It sounds... a little unbalanced. I don't think he's a crackpot, all the other quantum physisist are wrong and I'm not unbalanced. Prove it. I use science to make my theories instead of making predictions with math like the universe is a computer or something. The reason they have to use math is because we have not yet invented the means to measure something on such a small scale. I mean, it will happen eventually. We will get the ability to measure it and then we will work on proving the hypotheses. Until then, Mmath is the only thing we can use to make a guess. I do not see how you could have possibly "used science" to make your theories--especially if you don't use math. Math is science, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:08 pm
Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. electron(3)+electron(3)=Unamed(6) Unamed(6)'s counter particle singlelonequagmite(1) doesn't exist. Thus Unamed(6) cracks into two non-repeling particles. Unamed(6)=positron(4)+neutrino(2) It's proven that when two electrons collide a positron is produced. The neutrino that I belive is also produce is hard to detect. Because the physisist aren't looking for a neutrino they don't know that one is also being produced along with the positron. I will publish my work when I build a perpetual motion machine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:18 pm
Laff70 Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. electron(3)+electron(3)=Unamed(6) Unamed(6)'s counter particle singlelonequagmite(1) doesn't exist. Thus Unamed(6) cracks into two non-repeling particles. Unamed(6)=positron(4)+neutrino(2) It's proven that when two electrons collide a positron is produced. The neutrino that I belive is also produce is hard to detect. Because the physisist aren't looking for a neutrino they don't know that one is also being produced along with the positron. I will publish my work when I build a perpetual motion machine. First of all....PERPETUAL MOTION ISN'T REAL! IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS! Where are you even getting this? You could be right about the neutrino, but, honestly, if they detected a positron, they would have detected a neutrino too. It may have no charge, but one positron effects it's environment differently than a positron and a neutrino together. I know a pretty good amount about varying spectroscopes. Things on that scale effect each other greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:18 pm
Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. -edit- Also... why are there more "positron" than "electron" particles in your Quagmite? You know... since they're making up an electron? That doesn't make sense to me. Especially since one electron completely cancels out the charge in one proton. Overall charge of proton is 3 It's because the distance weakens the positive force, the charge of a electron doesn't cancel out the charge of a proton. Also Quagmites make up both electrons and positrons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:21 pm
Laff70 Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. -edit- Also... why are there more "positron" than "electron" particles in your Quagmite? You know... since they're making up an electron? That doesn't make sense to me. Especially since one electron completely cancels out the charge in one proton. Overall charge of proton is 3 It's because the distance weakens the positive force, the charge of a electron doesn't cancel out the charge of a proton. Also Quagmites make up both electrons and positrons. But I asked you what you think an electron is made up of.... so you didn't even answer my question..... in your mass of scientific and made up jargon? And a proton is +1 and a n electron is -1. I know that much from my years of studying chemistry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:23 pm
Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Laff70 Yeata Zi Ehhhh... have you gotten any papers on your physics theories published in a peer reviewed journal? Because if not--I'm leaning towards thinking your theories are crackpot. Get some stuff published in SCIENCE or NATURE and turn the physics world up on it's head. Until that point--you totally can't convince me, a non-physicist, that any of your "theories" hold any weight at all. Not trying to be mean, but theoretical physics is complicated, and a subject that people with PhDs spend thier entire careers on. Also.... what's the make up of electrons? I've taken a bunch of quantum physics/physical chemistry classes and I am interested to hear what you think they are composed of. 3 particles that I call Quagmites. Quagmites belong to a class of particals I call Nucleotites. Quagmites like to be in groups of seven. Positrons have 4 Quagmites in them. 4 Quagmites(positron) plus 3 Quagmites(electron) equals 7 Quagmites. However when these 7 Quagmite particals are made by something like a electron positron collision the moment it's made the momentum made by the attracting forces vibrates the Quagmites into photons, causing a gamma ray burst. I determined the amount of quagmites by looking at how positrons electrons and neutrinos interact. This isn't proof. Where's your experimental evidence? Your trials. Your methods and materials? How can you see how these things even interact? What machine are you using? How did you determine this? Can I get some figures? And what do PhD scientists think of your studies? Do you have one giving you access to his lab, and overlooking your work? Has he or you published a paper involving any of your work? Have you even heard of the Scientific Method? To me this looks like a bunch of made up words. I see a photon, but a photon would be a much larger sub atomic particle than the "Quagmite" that somehow emits an entire photon--and how can you even "believe" in photons if you don't believe in quantum mechanics. Photons were discovered because of quantum physics. Before quantum physics people believed light was only a wave and not a particle at all. electron(3)+electron(3)=Unamed(6) Unamed(6)'s counter particle singlelonequagmite(1) doesn't exist. Thus Unamed(6) cracks into two non-repeling particles. Unamed(6)=positron(4)+neutrino(2) It's proven that when two electrons collide a positron is produced. The neutrino that I belive is also produce is hard to detect. Because the physisist aren't looking for a neutrino they don't know that one is also being produced along with the positron. I will publish my work when I build a perpetual motion machine. First of all....PERPETUAL MOTION ISN'T REAL! IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS! Where are you even getting this? You could be right about the neutrino, but, honestly, if they detected a positron, they would have detected a neutrino too. It may have no charge, but one positron effects it's environment differently than a positron and a neutrino together. I know a pretty good amount about varying spectroscopes. Things on that scale effect each other greatly. THE BIG BANG VIOLATES THOSE "LAWS" OF PHYSICS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!!!!! Also only the photon force from the positron and neutrino will interact. The positron force doesn't affect the neutrino force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:25 pm
Okay, I have a proposal: Let's table this discussion until Laff finishes his perpetual motion machine, thereby proving all of science wrong and becoming the richest man in the history of the cosmos...
Once that happens, then we can continue. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
