Unified idea in layman's terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry...is ds^2=x^2+y^2 or simply the second distance derivative of a circle from the initial whirlpools.&nbsp;Cheers Michael. <br />Posted by genius2007</DIV></p><p>I am deathly afraid that there may be someone, probably a lurker, out there reading this mess who has a genuine desire to learn something about physics or cosmology.&nbsp; If you are such a person, I beseech you to ignore this gibberish, for gibberish it is.&nbsp; To rise to the level of rubbish it would need to make a statement of sufficient clarity to be subject to refutation.&nbsp; There is no such statement made.&nbsp; It is a mere&nbsp;juxtaposition of words, one step above the&nbsp;juxtaposition of letters and symbols that would result from placing a monkey at a keyboard, but with no greater significance.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am deathly afraid that there may be someone, probably a lurker, out there reading this mess who has a genuine desire to learn something about physics or cosmology.&nbsp; If you are such a person, I beseech you to ignore this gibberish, for gibberish it is.&nbsp; <strong><em>To rise to the level of rubbish it would need to make a statement of sufficient clarity to be subject to refutation.</em></strong>&nbsp; There is no such statement made.&nbsp; It is a mere&nbsp;juxtaposition of words, one step above the&nbsp;juxtaposition of letters and symbols that would result from placing a monkey at a keyboard, but with no greater significance.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I just read the post several times and came up with nothing.&nbsp; It's that far beyond comprehension.&nbsp; He got the Nuetron 'becoming' a proton almost right, but it didn't make sense with the context. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
G

genius2007

Guest
<p>replying to <font color="#003399">DrRocket</font> </p><p>I am deathly afraid that there may be someone, probably a lurker, out there reading this mess who has a genuine desire to learn something about physics or cosmology. If you are such a person, I beseech you to ignore this gibberish, for gibberish it is. </p><p>-----------------------------------</p><p>removed by request</p>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>Huh?</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/4/5aa65ed5-0f1e-42ba-a4cb-34d5e54f6d61.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p><p>I'm trying to figure out what your are saying, but i'm just not finding anything that is remotely coherent.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am glad you added that. This does not attempt to be quantum mechanics or general relativity but a different frame work of <strong>an idea first worked back in the fifties and sixties</strong>.&nbsp; <br />Posted by genius2007</DIV></p><p>Aha, the glimmer of reason peaks through, but the tiniest glimmer and perhaps only a fleeting virtual glimmer.</p><p>Do I&nbsp;see here a reference to work by John Wheeler and some of his students on quantum foam ?&nbsp; If so, you are more astute than your writing indicates.&nbsp; But if such is the case, you are capable of clear thought and discussion, perhaps even of precision in the use of language.&nbsp; Or&nbsp;maybe you are only clever in the sense of knowing a wee bit and being able to string it together in a line of babble.&nbsp;&nbsp;The question is whether we find here intelligence camoflaged as idiocy, or whether it is the genuine article.</p><p>If you&nbsp;do have an intellect and some&nbsp;knowledge to support it,&nbsp;then speak clearly and&nbsp;share it.&nbsp; If you can only simulate the output of a monkey at a keyboard, put a sock in it.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The equation from big bang is:-</p><p>B=0ds^-2+u(ds^-1)+s+vds+a/2ds^2</DIV></p><p>OK here is your mission: prove that this is not a random series of letters and arithmetic symbols.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>0ds^-2 is the starting point for the big bang because it started at some point. It has the circular&nbsp;whirlpools.</DIV></p><p>Before we get into the equation it should be pointed out that the universe does not have a center point, be that as it may, let's continue.</p><p>What is 'd'?&nbsp; What is 's'?&nbsp; Why even include this term&nbsp;'ds^-2', since it is&nbsp;multiplied by zero, will make this term zero regardless of the value of d & s.&nbsp; We can ignore the whirlpool&nbsp;comment for now.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>uds^-1 in the velocity of the universe and compares to the speed of the runner. It plays a part in shape</p><p>s is our point position and where we are in the structure without a time reference.</p><p>vds is our velocity in space within the universe and is one dimension.</DIV></p><p>What is 'd'?&nbsp; What is 'v' or 'u'?&nbsp; Velocity is generally length/time, how is this term velocity?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>a/2ds^2 is our acceleration and is a plane and so two dimensions.</DIV></p><p>What is 'a'?</p><p>What is 'd'?</p><p>What is 's'?<br /><br />If you could clear up what these symbols stand for we can move on - slightly.</p><p><em>edited for spelling</em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>In the old days, we would have said gimme a "P".</p><p>But since threads cannot be moved, we are left with a dilemma.</p><p>I suggest closing the thread here with a suggestion to reopen the thread in "The Unexplained".</p><p>Otherwise, the scientific value of SDC is ratcheted way down.,</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The idea that the universe might be a construct of worm holes is not an easy one. <br /> Posted by genius2007</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Physicbabble.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the old days, we would have said gimme a "P".But since threads cannot be moved, we are left with a dilemma.I suggest closing the thread here with a suggestion to reopen the thread in "The Unexplained".Otherwise, the scientific value of SDC is ratcheted way down., <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I did not realize that threads could not be moved...</p><p>I completely agree that the thread should be closed with the suggestion that it be continued in the 'unexplained'.&nbsp;&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;also think that the 'electric universe' thread should be treated likewise, as well as others.&nbsp; Basically, anthing that is not "mainstream" should go there.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>It has been stated by a couple of people that someone visiting this site could mistakenly confuse these types of conjectures with actual scientific theories, which would be unfortunate.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is clear that the shape of a six dimension manifold is not understood by ordinary minds.Posted by genius2007</DIV></p><p>Actually, 6-manifolds are easier to understand than are 3-manifolds.</p><p>The Poincare conjecture was solved over 30 years ago by Smale in dimensions 5 and above.&nbsp; It was solved in dimension 4&nbsp; by Freedman 10 or 14 years ago.&nbsp; The dimension 3 case was solved only a couple of years ago by Perleman.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suggest closing the thread here with a suggestion to reopen the thread in "The Unexplained".Otherwise, the scientific value of SDC is ratcheted way down.<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /></p><p>I, wholeheartedly, agree.&nbsp; But I doubt even the woowoo crowd could decipher this stuff.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the old days, we would have said gimme a "P".But since threads cannot be moved, we are left with a dilemma.I suggest closing the thread here with a suggestion to reopen the thread in "The Unexplained".Otherwise, the scientific value of SDC is ratcheted way down., <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I don't think this mess really qualifies for "The Unexplained".&nbsp; This stuff is not some sort of speculative physics or even some semi-mystical notion of cosmology.&nbsp; It is, except for a couple of phrases, just babble.&nbsp; What we have is not unexplained phenomena, but incomprehensible rambling -- meaningless words and symbols.&nbsp; There is just enough structure to suggest that the native language of the OP might be English.</p><p>I see two possibilities.&nbsp; The OP might actually be a reasonably intelligent person with a warped sense of humor who posts this junk just to see the reaction of others, and giggles up his sleeve at the responses.&nbsp; I think this may be the case, because there are hints that has actually read at least popularized accounts of some fairly advanced physical speculation (serious speculation by serious physicists).&nbsp; If that is the case then our responses to his nonsense are only fueling the fire.</p><p>The other possibility is that he is in serious need of help, from a good psychiatrist.&nbsp; If so we can't help him.</p><p>In either case I think that the best that the rational members of the community can do is make a post to warn any young naive lurkers that this stuff is not to be taken seriously and then ignore "genius 2007".&nbsp; I think continuing in this thread is counter-productive, as would be removing it or restarting it elsewhere.</p><p>Bottom line.&nbsp; I intend to do what I can to help potential youngsters who are interested in physics to succeed and to recognize bad science as well as good science.&nbsp; If there is a kernel that can be amplified to provide real information that we can do so.&nbsp; But,on the whole, I think the best course of action is to IGNORE THIS NUT and not encourage him to continue.</p><p>10-4 good buddy.&nbsp; We gone.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY