Proof of One

not to mention the fact that he keeps on about how popular he is on google and how many views this thread has.

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

a high google rating does not mean you are God.

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

i wonder what he gets on the Baez rating.[/url']...i'm not sure with how many times he declares it a paradigm shift

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

every single one

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

proof of one, derive the basics of pulsoid theory right heere, or photocopy one of the many odcuments you claim to possess into here.

Please advise as where to send photocopies.

 

The basics of Pulsoid Theory, for those too lazy to read or study very much, are, probably, most succinctly found in "The Mystique of the Ellipse" for those that are not interested enough to read a few successive Threads; or, for those who are unable to, or incapable of, understand logic.

 

Of interest might be the Overview and Summary for those accustomed to reading technical journals.

 

One of the problems with your website is you present a few dozen threads without any order as to which one comes first in understanding pulsoid theory.

If you could count you would find 80, or so, Threads. I only started a bit over a month ago and am averaging about eight, or more, posts a day (many are starts of Threads) in all forums. You can find an Index/Table of Contents at: http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TOC. This site is kept current on an hourly basis.

 

There would be many more substantive posts, if I were not bothered with baseless, nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

i have told you several.

Yet, quite apparently, not one that you can recall.

do you get paid for your pulsoid theory stuff? btw' date=' not being formally recognized by scientific community=not being recognized by the scientific community....funny how that works, eh?

 

how about any actual physics from pulsoid theory

 

and his accusation was correct[/quote']As usual, just nonsensical, bantering tripe. I will let the above stand as its best rebuttal.

again with the sidestepping...why? just pick one.

Obviously, I am curious as to whether you can find a single one; then, I am curious as to which one you select and your reasoning for its selection. From a practical approach, I cannot take the time to refute a negative some 100, or so, times. And, lastly, I don’t believe there is one that you can find.

 

how are they circularly defined........i'll take a shot......[math]\vec{x}[/math], [math]\vec{y}[/math], [math]\vec{z}[/math], and [math]\vec{t}[/math'] are vector spaces that are orthogonal to each other.

You have made my point; as many learned persons should agree.

 

and none of them mean a thing until you define them in a non-circular manner

Pick one. I should be able to define it non-circularly.

 

stop with the sidestepping, unless, of course, you actually do have nothing and are just looking for attention...

Me thinks, thou protests too much . . .

 

a dictionary is NOT a technical resource

Tell that one to a lexicographer.

You told me that I obviously had not been trained as a theoretical physicist, and YT that his not being a physicist limited his value in the discussion.

Without further checking, I will accept your statements.

 

I thought you proudly proclaimed that you didn't engage in ad hominem arguments?

I try very hard to not so do; I doubt very much that I made the statement as you reflect it.

 

But you're not a professional, and you have no accomplishments recognized by the physics community.

I am a professional. I have many accomplishments recognized by the physics community. I have no accomplishments that are formally recognized by said community. Not certain as to where the fault may lie.

 

This likely ends my participation here.

You will probably be missed by some.

 

If, perchance, there should be some physics to discuss, that would change.

There is plenty of physics that I would like to discuss; you may pick any topic; and, I will see what I can do with it.

 

But your steadfast refusal to answer questions of a scientific nature makes continuing a pointless waste of time.

You have made a general accusation, which is impossible to reply to; if you could be specific concerning the questions that I have refused to answer, everyone would be able to understand your position; and, just possibly, I might be able to reply.

also, if you take the speed of light and or gravity to be infinity, then you don't have to worry about the motion of the packets, as they don't really move just appear at the end of there journey

Apparently, you understand little of what the term speed of gravity means.

 

As far as the speed of light, particularly, in the Congeneric Realm of Dissipation, I have not said that it propagates at the speed of Infinity; I have said that its speed like Cosmic Inertia is not constant.

 

The internal speed of oscillation that is responsible for the ellipsoidal structure of a light wave is near the speed of Infinity.

 

Either pay attention when you read; or, cite examples when you state your opinion as to what I contend.

 

Your endless, non-informed carping must be irritating to many that would like to get on with the substance of this Thread.

 

I note that it is the youngest of members which appear to understand the least.

i told you SEVERAL TIMES. EVERY SINGLE TERM YOU INTRODUCE IS DEFINED IN A CIRCULAR MANNER[/size']

In that case you should have no difficulty locating a single one so that I can attempt to correct it.

 

My offer is certainly better than other physicists that have been unable to do such with the conventional four dimensions.

 

Perhaps you should direct your wrath towards the Pomo elite physicists, as well.

 

At least I will gladly make the attempt at rectifying your perceived confusion. Just one word please, I must have 100 or more neologisms and acronyms from which to pick.

 

Otherwise, I must assume that your plaint is without merit; or possibly, you don't understand the term "Circular Definition," which I provided you earlier . . . admitedly, without citing the Dictionary that I used.

 

Should you be able to cite any Dictionary that has a substantially different definition, I will reconsider your point as significant.

proof of one, your asking questions about what pulsoid theory is in no way shows that your point is right.

No. But, I am replying to a direct question.

 

Something that I find quite lacking in the posts from several of the younger members.

why should i answer them when you have yet to do so in such a way that is not circular?

If you can find an instance of something that is circular, I will immediatly fix it.

 

Your assertions, that are never supported, are becoming lame.

 

Can you find no mistake in logic or math? I have posted at least 60 original ideas.

 

There must be one that you can find some perceived fault with?

are you sure you're not describing your posts? ok, give me a direct question.

I'll give you a few. All answers can be found at http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

What is the Elliptical Constant (EC)? How is the EC related to the Proof of One?; How do they both relate to Number Theory?; and, Why does Number Theory impact descriptive physics?

you still have presented nothing. an elipse...wow, how groundbreaking. you provide no quantitative predictions of any kind. and the qualitative predictions you say you have, have no connection with pulsoid theory.

Obviously, you still can't read; continue to post tripe; and neglect every direct question I ask.

 

Some performance, indeed.

wow, you can graph an elipse. are you really this dense or do you just really need attention?

Thanks. I had hoped you would like it.

 

Apparently, you found nothing wrong with the equations. I appreciate that you could find no logical or mathematical mistakes.

 

Some think I am dense; and, I suppose, at times, we all enjoy a little attention.

 

You surely are a fine example to broach the subject of attention requirement.

...the views statistic is the number of people who have looked at a page, this is not true it is in fact the number of times people have accessed this page, since I have accessed it probably at least ten times today (just that much of a looser) you can knock that many views off of it, you could also knock the 20-30 times I've viewed it in the past.

Your information is interesting.

 

No matter how many times I view a post or move around a Thread, page, or topic. Or, close, refresh or reopen my browser, the view count never changes.

 

It appears to me that it is linked to an IP address and does not tabulate multiple views.

 

I am curious. Maybe the staff can explain the system?

 

Try as I might, I have never been able to add a view.

 

You seem to know something that I don't understand too well.

show me a single equation from pulsoid theory

The below link is to a post that has many "equations," as do many other posts that I have continually given you.

 

Are you unable to read; or otherwise deficient?

 

"The Mystique of the Ellipse."

there is a little problem. you still have provided no mathematics for it.

Obviously, you have no ability when it comes to reading or understanding mathematics.

 

If there is a single formula or bit of logic that you do not understand at Pulsoid Theory, so state.

 

Otherwise you are wasting my time; and even worse, all of the time of outside viewers that are not the least interested in your infantile posts.

 

This Thread is rocketing to the top of the first page of Threads when sorted by Viewers. Don't embarrass yourself more than you have already.

 

Tripe is uncalled for; find the meat!!!

Unless you can show otherwise, (and I am moderatly well versed with most experiments that cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars)

Then, I am sure that you are aware of Cosmic Vision 2015-2026, which proposals are all pretty much on the theme of Pulsoid Theory.

 

You might also check: SpaceRef.com

 

I might add that Pulsoid Theory nicely explains/predicts Quasar formation and Gamma-ray bursts.

 

Also, Caltech's efforts regarding gravity waves is approaching one billion dollars; Pulsoid Theory predicts that Caltech will not succeed.

 

A European consortium is planning to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. Search this site for “Pioneer” to find the announcement.

 

If the Pioneer Anomaly is a fact, it is a phenomenon that, currently, is only explicable with Pulsoid Theory.

 

Of course, the photon effect will always be the best evidence/proof of Pulsoid Theory.

have you ever thought there was a reason everyone says there is no scientific merit to anything you have presented?

Yes, often.

 

Either I, or my critics are wrong.

 

However, as mathematics is not very subjective, it is undeniable that Pulsoid Theory is a Paradigm Shift in the field of Pure Mathematics.

 

It would seem that if Pure Mathematics is the the true foundation of descriptive physics, then my work could possibly have some "scientific merit."

 

The call is not mine to make with regards to physics.

think about it.....long and hard....

I have. Is fifty plus years long enough.

 

No regrets, yet.

 

With a bit of luck, another twenty, or so, should be possible.

Well, it does when you publicly claim to be a theoretical physicist, and when you belittle others for not being physicists

I don’t consciously belittle anyone for what they are. On occasion, when it seems warranted, I do question a persons training.

 

… - for not measuring up to some standard to which you do not measure.

My standards are IPSO.

 

As to whether I “measure” is for others to judge.

 

Obviously, your vote has been cast. (You, probably, decided to vote for G.W. Bush before the debates.)

 

That's some ego you've got.

I would equate the “ego” to more like professional hubris.

 

While you claim to be shut out of publication by conspiracy, I see absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with your claims just being crap being the reason nobody else will put their name on a paper with you.

You are not alone; your opinion is shared by many.

 

If the papers you've written are anything like the pages to which you link, it's no wonder you can't get published - there's nothing of any scientific merit that anyone would want to publish!

You may be on to something. Though, I’ll wager that Euclid would have wanted to know about the Elliptical Constant.

 

You've misrepresented your qualifications.

If I have, that is a most grievous error; and, you have every right to so expose.

 

How does anyone know what else you've misrepresented?

I know of nothing. If I am mistaken, someone will so advise. Many are paying attention.

 

How many of these meetings with great minds were actually you getting tossed out of the physics building and off campus for pestering them with your inane ideas?

I’ve been banned, thrown out, threatened with physical harm, all many times; but always by the acolytes . . . usually grad students and post docs. I'm sure you would not make me feel welcome.

 

I would judge the “great minds” enjoyed my thoughts as much as I enjoyed their thoughts. I have mounds of correspondence to that effect; never once requesting to be “off record.”

 

Well, maybe, J. A. Wheeler, alone, has written a bit that some might find disparaging; I didn’t; I was flattered.

...you don't seem to reference any of the dictionary definitions that you use.

I have found most learned persons understand my precise vocabulary; those that don't usually own a dictionary and use it.

 

It's been many years since I have raised young children and have had to explain the meanings of simple everyday words that are used by the learned.

 

...what people really want to know here is what lead you to believe that there is an inner structure of a light wave?

In 1952 through 1954 I spent much time researching and thinking about the etiology of seminal motion. Serendipitously, the phenomenon occurred to me. Nothing has been the same since. And, no one has demonstrated otherwise.

 

To this day, no one else has ever considered the internal, geometric structure of a light wave; or the reason for that structure's particular shape. Yet, I have written about it on the internet for over 15 years.

 

….why should researchers spend money or time trying to prove this theory right or wrong?

Currently, 100s of millions are being spent to verify observations predicted by Pulsoid Theory over 50 years ago.

that is why we have an edit button

Doesn't seem to help when the system double posts

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! rofl lolly rofles lol lmfao ect.

name dropping means nothing

Thanks for all your assistance.

 

You have been the perfect foil that is helping to drive the Viewers to record levels in a matter of hours.

 

Are you aware that your posts may be cached on Google for ontold years, where they will always be available to those that may know your pseudonym?

 

My concern is that you are wasting every good viewers time with your drivel.