|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:26 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. -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. Sure, believe everything they tell you because they have a degree!!! An electron is made up of 3 Quagmites. Also I'm not trolling, now goodnight.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:28 pm
The Iron Magus 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 Ok, fine by me, it's the only way I'll convince you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:29 pm
Laff70 The Iron Magus 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 Ok, fine by me, it's the only way I'll convince you. Godspeed, you strange person, you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:34 pm
Laff70 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. Wait.... you think the Big Bang happened? But not any of this other well supported scientific fact? It is well agreed upon among the scientific community that the environment allowing the big bang to take place was a completely different environment than that of our current universe. Therefore, different forces were being applied upon the laws. But the laws of thermodynamics? I doubt even they were ignored by the big bang. You know, since they deal entirely with energy. Plus if you think you are going to make a perpetual motion machine under big bang circumstances, I wish you luck. Also, try bringing up your plans to build a "perpetual motion" machine with any *real* scientist--and expect to be laughed off the property of whatever university or laboratory you find yourself at. And with that, I'm done. I am throwing in the towel. I wanted to give you a chance to make a valid argument, but instead you have shown me only ignorance to the scientific method. You can say you have scientific theories supported by science, but the simple fact is you do not. You have some bizarre dream that you call science because you have half researched some scientific jargon. I suggest you go to school for creative writing. You'd be one helluva science fiction author. Maybe you could start your own religion like L. Ron Hubbard. Good night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:42 pm
Oh, our holiday thread has completely digressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:06 pm
Yeata Zi Oh, our holiday thread has completely digressed. XD Merry Christmas, Blessed Yule, and Happy Monkey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:33 am
Oh your last post was filled with lies Zi!!! Grrr, I'm mad I can't respond to it due to the agreement I made with TIM. Grrrrr.................till after I invent the perpetual motion machine....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:58 am
The Iron Magus Yeata Zi Oh, our holiday thread has completely digressed. XD Merry Christmas, Blessed Yule, and Happy Monkey. Happy monkey?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:47 pm
Yeata Zi The Iron Magus Yeata Zi Oh, our holiday thread has completely digressed. XD Merry Christmas, Blessed Yule, and Happy Monkey. Happy monkey? : An alternate personal greeting of the Christmas Holiday Season for atheists. It originated on December 18, 2008 on the science blog, Pharyngula. The blogger, PZ Myers, received an email in which the writer referred to evolutionists and atheists as worshiping Charles Darwin as a god, and proceeded to say, "Until then, happy monkey! (or what ever non Christmas evolution people say)".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:19 pm
The Iron Magus Happy Monkey: An alternate personal greeting of the Christmas Holiday Season for atheists. It originated on December 18, 2008 on the science blog, Pharyngula. The blogger, PZ Myers, received an email in which the writer referred to evolutionists and atheists as worshiping Charles Darwin as a god, and proceeded to say, "Until then, happy monkey! (or what ever non Christmas evolution people say)".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:32 pm
The Iron Magus Yeata Zi The Iron Magus Yeata Zi Oh, our holiday thread has completely digressed. XD Merry Christmas, Blessed Yule, and Happy Monkey. Happy monkey? : An alternate personal greeting of the Christmas Holiday Season for atheists. It originated on December 18, 2008 on the science blog, Pharyngula. The blogger, PZ Myers, received an email in which the writer referred to evolutionists and atheists as worshiping Charles Darwin as a god, and proceeded to say, "Until then, happy monkey! (or what ever non Christmas evolution people say)". Ah. That is completely misinformed <3 but delightful none-the-less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
