Proof of One

here`s a typical point that even ME, a non Physics guy, take issue with, so I`m certain the better educated than myself in this are Will Be!

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread.

 

26 times? why?

I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic.

 

If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters.

 

what if I were to say it was actualy Thirteen times, could you PROVE me wrong? could I even be just as Correct?

I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous.

 

all we ask for Ad Nauseum, is Proof! clear conscise repeatable mathematical PROOF!

For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highly admire.)

 

now I`ll ignore the rest of your post for now...

Thank you.

 

and strongly urge to remain on topic! and if you do get any off topic attacks, just Ignore them and give us this Proof that you claim to have, that`s ALL we ask here, nothing fancy!

I actually do try with great effort to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel.

 

As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum.

 

...now I`m sure you understand 100% what I`ve said, get on with it

Not exactly; but, I am trying.

here`s a typical point that even ME, a non Physics guy, take issue with, so I`m certain the better educated than myself in this are Will Be!

Being a "non Physics guy" would seem to limit your value to this Thread.

 

26 times? why?

I have no idea why. I selected the solution for the speed of gravity as near that of Infinity. Anything else would seem to defy observation and logic.

 

If you have a concern regarding the irrational solutions of GR and calculus, take them up with Kip Thorne and Steven Weinberg. I respect their opinions concerning such matters.

 

what if I were to say it was actualy Thirteen times, could you PROVE me wrong? could I even be just as Correct?

I'm not sure if you are "just as Correct"; however, to me you are just as ludicrous.

 

all we ask for Ad Nauseum, is Proof! clear conscise repeatable mathematical PROOF!

For proof see this quote by: Lawrence M. Krauss. (More L.M.K., a person that I highlt admire.)

 

now I`ll ignore the rest of your post for now...

Thank you.

 

and strongly urge to remain on topic! and if you do get any off topic attacks, just Ignore them and give us this Proof that you claim to have, that`s ALL we ask here, nothing fancy!

I actually do try quite to the best of my ability. I often cannot let distortions lie for the public without response. I do not relish wasting my time on irrelevant drivel.

 

As far as "PROOF" almost every post of Pulsid Theory contains much that is predictable, observable, and testable. The photon effect is a perfect example; the twelve salient subatomic particles is another; in fact all physical and mathematical manifestations, ad infinitum.

 

...now I`m sure you understand 100% what I`ve said, get on with it

Not exactly; but, I am trying.

Jesus H Christ! "i'm gonna ignore every point and argue semantics!" btw, the dictionary is not a technical resource.

If you are serious about arguing semantics, might I recommend a book that I've had on my shelf for 50 years and often enjoy perusing:

 

Science and Sanity, An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Third Edition, a revision by Alfred Korzybski, 1933, 1948

The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company.

 

There are many persons that find the Dictionary quite helpful in defining every day terms such as "Circular Definition" and "Math."

yea, nice evidence. just about how much i thought you had.

Thank you. I thought such was among the most powerful evidence that I could present. You might “Click” and read carefully this time. Of course, you really should be questioning Lawrence M. Krauss and his many supporters.

 

 

ok, it has no point. that better?

No. You have given an opinion. You have not given an example of my logic, with which you dispute.

 

Maybe, you don’t question my math and logic; just the presenter?

 

then you have no idea what a circular definition is.

An excellent example of circular definitions are the four basic dimensions that are so misunderstood by most all physicists.

 

every single one of your made up terms has a circular definition

Please give me just ONE example; and, I will correct it.

 

neither of those are tests

Your saying so, especially considering your learned background, does not make it so. I do not understand why it would not be possible to test for the phuton effect; and the Europeans are mounting millions of dollars to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. What part of test do you misunderstand?

 

that's not a test either.....amazing

Please consult any Pure Mathrmatician concerning the contrivances of numbers . . . upon which the fundamental concepts of physics ultimately rests.

 

lets see, both light and gravity have been experimentally tested to travel at c, not infinity.

Not so. Or at least the issue is far from settled. There is definitely much in question regarding the speed of gravity; and many are beginning to question the concept of light and its speed; particulary as to its internal structure and its various states . . . there are four.

neither of those have ANY math in them.....who would have guessed.

That is because you have not provided any mathemetics on the page you linked to. you didn't even say what the eliptical constant is.

I am not certain which linked page you are referring to. Please advise and I will clarify.

 

Pulsoid Theory is replete with mathematics and its logic.

 

The Elliptical Constant is a simple algebraic/geometrical concept that is the scheduled topic of a seminar to be held shortly. You will be advised. You can be asured that it is the Rosetta Stone of all Knowledge and Wisdom.

what is a gedunken?

I will let most of your comments stand. They are their best rebuttel.

 

However, no one who understands a wit about theoretical physics could possible ask for the definition of a “gedunken.” Certainly, not without first Googling.

 

a product of using base ten

You responded to my below quote, as above.

 

Five is the only odd number that when multiplied by other odd numbers always results with the same number as its last digit . . . the last digit is always five, "5."

Had you carefully study Pulsoid Theory, you would have noted that one of its revolutionary Pure Mathematics' concepts is that it uses no “base” or scale; such is the significance of the universal Proof of One and the Elliptical Constant.

 

Your continuing ad hominem and pejorative comments only weaken your arguments.

 

You would be more effective in presenting your case if you would eliminate the emotion and stick to logic.

that was just about how impressed i was with your crap.

 

for the 10 trillionth time' date=' [u']THAT ISN'T HOW GOOGLE WORKS!!!!!!!![/u]

Check with both a real world-class theoretical physicist and a world-class internet Guru.

 

I believe you'll be surprised and impressed with what i actually do understand.

lets see:

1)not a scrap of evidence

See: Observational evidence.

 

2)vague beyond meaning

Vague is subjective and not specific. Please give an example so that it can be clarified.

 

3)all terms have circular definitions

I know of no terms so defined in Pulsoid Theory. Please specify one; and' date=' I will immediately clarify it in a non[b']-[/b]circular manner.

 

I might mention that all dimensions in conventional physics are circularly defined . . . an impossibly lax situation.

 

4)not way to test it

The photon effect is a great test for Pulsoid Theory. Also, the Pioneer anomaly is another excellent test. And, of course, the Natural integers are one of the best tests; iff such were not so, all integers must be considered as contrived . . . a sad situation.

 

5)what little base it has been experimentally proven to be false

I know of no such instance. Can you cite some case in point?

either you are joking or a complete idiot......it's probably both

Ad hominem argument is a sure sign of a weak argument.

 

Pick a logical agument or mathematical statement to discuss.

that does not support your case, that proves your the only person on the internet who makes mention of the "eliptical constant"

You are quite correct. No one else in the world understands the Elliptical Constant, which is the Rosetta Stone of all wisdom, except for myself. My point is that: anyone who seeks wisdom should understand the Elliptical Constant.

 

It is the Elliptical Constant that is at the crux of all physical manifestations; and, it offers a rationalization for the ellimation of all the metaphysics that is promulgated by Pomo elite theoretical physicists.

 

If you do not understand the value of pure mathematics, which is an essential part of understanding the fundamental concepts of physics, I suggest that you educate yourself.

 

furthermore with this in mind you may want to consider the fact that very few people will google for eliptical constant. and finnaly you should consider that I can get google to look at one of my posts as well

That the world has difficulty undersatand something so simple as the Elliptical Constant and its significance to all knowledge is not my problem.

 

just quote a significant portion of text from one of my posts and you'll find that google will bring up a post of mine.

I would think that this proves how unconcerned Google is with truth and fundamental wisdom. Google has provided the playing field; the performers must provide the content . . . wise, or otherwise.

 

this proves nothing.

Probably not. But, your reply proves much.

 

finally respond to the criticism that was given to you

I am overwhelmed from many forums, and over 70 Domain Names, if I am lax in some particular area of response, Please elaborate. Much is so ludicrous on its surface that no response should be necessary. Comments often stand by themselves as their own best rebuttals.

 

I would recommend that if you wish to be credible that you carefully study Pulsoid Theory; then pick one logical statement or mathematical expression and criticize it specifically . . . if you can. I am always looking for thoughtful input concerning "tweaking" the theory so that others can more easily understand it. Your input could be invaluable.

...

we did see it.

 

why is it "Difficult" to extend beyond what you "have"? in Here' date=' is there something perculiar to this forum that any other text based medium can accomodate? (dave went to great lengths to get the latex sorted out).[/quote']Sorry, I was informed privately that I had missed this post a day or two ago.

 

I meant no criticism of this forum. The problem is with myself.

 

However, “dave” might work on a spell, grammar, and punctuation checker for your staff.

 

This is ad hoc writing “on the fly” with little time for deep thought. All my replies are written and formatted in a matter of minutes. Often within minutes of the original post. I am writing in four forums currently, continuously under attack, while monitoring, creating, and editing many websites. Almost every forum comment is posted to several websites where many of my friends from laypersons to world-class physicists are kept up to date. I will gladly include you alone from this forum, on the group list, if you contact me personally.

 

I must write rapidly, because I am used to the Threads being locked before I can reply; or my replies that show deficiencies in the performance of mentors are quickly deleted. A tactic used at other forums quite routinely. (I have just discovered that often Google has cached these deleted posts before they are deleted. I am working on attempting to acquire several; hopefully, with some success).

 

Your forum is one of those with the greatest integrity concerning these issues and tactics.

 

I stand in admiration and thank you for your tolerance and fair rules. I have been banned without notice elsewhere and had many objective “on topic” posts edited merely because of tender egos concerned with the status quo. Alternative physics thought is resisted by the elite more than challenges to religions by iconoclastic heretics.

 

Admittedly, I have just rambled; it is with the intent of illustrating why forums are not places for studied work as journals are; where I am too controversial for them to touch. Until a few years ago I had complete access to all journals of the University of California. I believe I still read more than Linus did in his latter days. I am actually banned from talking to physics students on the campus of a prestigious public University, where I include among my friends a laureate, who died several tears ago.

 

Often I will spend days rewriting a paragraph or two until I am satisfied with it. Nothing that I have posted for the last 16 years on the internet has been other than “rapid writing.” All my work is in carefully crafted manuscripts of 15 to 80 pages (one large book) that have been privately distributed, often to world leaders, over the years; and, volumes of annotations. The names of the receipents are among the many poems found elsewhere on the internet.

 

I will gladly give you private access. To do whatever you wish. All my correspondence that I send is unrestricted except the recent “Brunardot Theorem . . . a Proof of One,” which has a distribution of about 50; some via e-bay; and a .pdf distribution under 10, since this April.

 

No correspondence I receive is ever released while the author is alive, even when I have been given a release, which is usually always. Of course the other party is free to release anything, as you would be, if you privately contacted me. I never write a word that I am not prepared to fully backup; or, ask a question that I cannot answer.

 

if as in your 1`st point outlined above YOU`DE actually READ his post' date=' you`de see that he DID ASK for, or as you say (Request) information about this.

Information that YOU have failed to supply, How therefore can this be Our fault?[/quote']I can find nothing that I have considered as your “fault.” Of course, by now, I’ve lost the train of thought of this fast flying Thread. I have perused the last few of my postings; but still can’t understand what you are referring to. I’m sure the fault is mine. If you care to be a bit more specific, I’ll do my best to reply in a transparent and forthright manner.

 

it`s all well and good talking complete and utter Fluff to less learned people and expect to get away with it, but you`re on a Science Forum here with REAL SCIENTISTS!

I know world-class theoretical physicists, mathematicians, scientific historians, and logicians. I have found none on this forum to this point . . . mostly just run-of-the-mill pedants with closed minds and large egos. Who can you suggest that I have met as yet on your staff that is otherwise?

 

kinda scary aint it when you look at it THAT way

If I found it scary, I would not have dedicated my life to theoretical physics after it almost cost me my life some 50 years ago. This is a walk in the park in comparison. If you want scary, consult Giordano Bruno, Voltaire, etc. Comparatvely, I doubt if you understand "scary."

how can gravity equal acceleration. it is same thing as saying magnetism equals accerleration does it not?

 

And I think people should stop calling it speed of light because gravity supposedly travels at speed of light' date=' meanins light might be travelling at the speed of gravity [/quote']The last that I heard, GR predicts that the speed of gravity is the speed of light, exactlt 26 times the speed of light, or near the speed of infinity.

 

The last speed is the correct answer. Pulsoid Theory shows the speed near the speed of Infinity. If anything less, the Cosmos would act like the balls on a billiard table. When one Cosmic body falters, almost instantly all Cosmic bodies are affected.

 

GR's equations (14) are not adept at more than two-body problems . . . which is better than the equations (3) of Newtonian gravity.

 

When GR was developed no one knew much, or anything, about the Cosmic speeds, "dark" matter, "dark" energy, or the accelerating galactic recession. Mach and Sciama are provimg to be the most wise concerning Cosmic motion prior to, and during, the Pomo era (Einstein's death to the HST).

that was just about how impressed i was with your crap.

 

for the 10 trillionth time' date=' [u']THAT ISN'T HOW GOOGLE WORKS!!!!!!!![/u]

I guess with my 70 plus, often high ranking domains (Google frequently changes the algorithm); I have learned nothing since before Google. In that case, your advice is duly noted.

 

And, yes, often my postings at night, on this forum, are found at Google the next morning,

 

Google watches me so closely that at PhysicsForums, from which I am totally banned, they use my original thoughts to promote the PhysicsForum website.

 

I find it quite ironic that the traffic that is so directed there (And as is also directed to this site) discovers that my posting name on every post has a thick black line drawn through it.

 

My viewers generally break all the forum records wherever I go. Probably thanks to Google and Yahoo.

 

For some unknown reason Google follows me. I note that some listings of foreign forums drop me from the top spots, occasionally; only to put me back on top in several days.

 

Try Googling Elliptical Constant, etc.

it's not theoretical physics' date=' it is baseless spam. maybe you should support your claims.

 

stop taking this thread off topic[/quote']What?

 

I'm suppossed to let your uninformed drivel and gibberish stand that never addresses logic or math.

 

There is little reason to continue. Obviously, our minds, science, and philosophy are far apart.

 

I suggest at this point that we simply agree to disagree; if that is all right with you?

any reason to think this?

 

*cough*time dilation*cough*

 

eh?

 

speed of gravity is c' date=' buddy.

why does it need one? EM, Strong, and Weak forces are much greater than gravity.

 

examples?

examples?

how are SR and GR incompatable? iirc, SR is a special case of GR(hence "special" relativity).

 

what is a gedunken?

 

nicely vague

what is cyclic time?

eh?

 

how so? what exactly have you proved?

 

that is baseless rubbish

what is this supposed to mean?

i've never heard of most of these buzzwords.

just like creationists trying to make observations fit the bible.

wrong

what?

none of which are predictions. more trying to make observations fit your vague rubbish

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

 

wrong again

 

more meaningless buzzwords

it is?

If the Natural function (the soliton, "s,") of a Brunardot Ellipse is One, "1,"; then the perigee, "p, equals the Golden Ratio, Phi, “Φ,” which is [math]\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}[/math]

a product of using base ten

more meaningless rambling on the number five

 

eh?

eh?

eh? wtf?

so much crap, so little desire to type

is this supposed to mean anything?

i'm getting the feeling most of your buzzwords are circular in definition.

vague, meaningless crap

wtf?

 

more meaningless crap. nice summary, i could have told you that in the faster than light thread.

 

/me can't believe he wasted his time actually reading this rubbish.

wtf?

what was the point?

wtf?

huh?

 

 

well, that was "Pulsoid Theory" and my thoughts as i read each thread....in conclusion, it is vague, basesless, meaningless, crap.

Wow. What an impressive response. The manner of the displayed intellect is truly amazing.

 

As a reminder, I am printing the prior post, from which the embedded quotes herein were derived, from a high resolution Epson photo printer, on high quality paper, framing it under glass, and hanging it above my computer.

 

First thing tomorrow, I will Google to see its ranking to determine if the world is as impressed as I.

there is a separate thread for your crap. keep it in there

Amazing reply, when you consider what you have squandered through total ignorance of theoretical physics. And, the effort that I expended to alleviate that sad situation.

 

I am not the one that you have denigrated.

variable speed of light theory. It was proposed as an alternative to inflation and postulates that the speed of light was far faster than it is now several billion years ago.

 

there was an article published in sciam about it a few years back.

If you understand anything about the geometry of the internal structure of light; you would understand why the limits of light's speed run the gamut from motionlessness to infinite; and you would also understand why that speed can not be constant.

 

Light is much as Cosmic Inertia; on the anthropoidal scale' date=' the variations are too minuscule to notice. If you were a galaxy you would be aware that Cosmic Inertia is a force only different from gravity as to its source.

 

Think of light as an ellipsoidal structure (subject to Triquametric motion, of course) that is drawn out to almost a straight line (Lines and circles are special ellipses). Heuristically, the variance from a straight line is a relative indication of the speed variance. Said ellipsoid is in a state of hyper-relativistic (superluminal), complex oscillation.

 

Incidently, this relationship of the ellipse to light's three types of sinusoidal oscillations is what Einstein sought most of his adult life as the key to relating SR and GR.

nice!

 

as a note to proof of one' date=' you mentioned that you had more scientific research than is found at your website. If there is substance to it will you care to show it?[/quote']Just found this Thread; thanks to you.

 

I did not want to be the one that created it; as, I have been previously accused in this forum of "grandstanding."

 

You are, probably, quite correct, depending on which website you are referring to, I have over 70 domain names that are all active.

 

I have published almost nothing of substance on the internet unless asked specific questions. Much is just provocative statements mixed with some error to judge who is paying attention.

 

The sites bring many acquaintances from around the world. I never divulge private correspondence. On all sites there are back channel ways to reach me.

 

To the point: my work always has substance. It would be near impossible to place all of it here; probably over 100Gbs.

 

I will answer as many questions as time allows, to the best of my ability; or clearly state why not; this site is not my life. It does appear that this Thread will be better than the morass I was dragged into elsewhere.

 

When directly questioned, every attempt is made to be forthright and transparent. I know that I will be informed if otherwise.

 

Please try to keep the drivel and bickering to a minimum if you want my full attention to substance.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14356

 

he created a new thread' date=' like you should have done two days ago...[/quote']I requested the change; and, I've been waiting for it to be created. I wasn't sure where it would be placed. Thanks again. I Don't know why I wasn't advise at the time of the request???

there's another thread in which you can talk about your spam

Thanks for tip. Where? Anything that brings accomplished theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians to the dialogue would be welcome relief.

I haven't found any specific predictions that the theory makes' date=' so there's nothing with which to disagree. No way to test it.

 

All I see are a bunch of circular references. Or, in deference to your voluminous ramblings, perhaps they are elliptical references. But there's no substance to them.[/quote']What outrageous flippancy.

 

You don't consider an explanation of the internal structure of a light wave to be of some substance to disagree with. Or, the existence of an Elliptical Constant, that has never been even suspected, that lends support to the entire field of mathematics that underlies all physical description. Or, the unbelievable beauty, as described by Weinberg, that one number in millions derived from complex quadratic equations yields the simple formula of integers for the Taisoidal radius, which heuristically represents the radius of a "quark," which Pulsoidal Theory demonstrates carries a full, rather than Murray Gell-Mann's fractional, charge. You haven't had the intellectual curiosity to ask "Why?"; or, specifically refute where the logic goes awry? Truly amazing, if one is a thinking physicist aware of the incongruities of all the Standard Models.

 

Both the COBE probe and Hubble Space Telescope verify many of the more unorthodox predictions of Pulsoid Theory.

 

Have you ever known a better description of "dark" matter, supposedly the Rosetta stone of theoretical physics; or, do you even know of any other logical explanation?

 

Do you understand anything about theoretical physics?

Not' date=' I believe that's Tom Mattson.

 

Apparently not.[/quote']I didn't read back carefully; or, note I wasn't responding to Tom; or, something.

 

I am overwhelmed with outside work (I have 70 some domains I operate; and, much e-mail); and, other forums are coming up with a sudden flurry of ridiculousness.

 

I thought when I made that statement concerning "in training" that I was replying to Tom.

 

I do respect your and Tom's effort and replies more than the others (though, you drive me nuts with the irrelevant stuff; get to the geometry and logic); you must know by now that I've withstood the rath of many of the leaders in the field; but, never had the oppurtunity, because of respect, to have the dialogues public.

 

With luck, sooner or laters, some world-class leaders will be goaded to respond at this forum. Unfortunately, though, probably, on your side. Hoping one of those quotes earlier today will find its way to John Schwarz.

 

Thanks again for catching my error. I doubt if I would have caught it if you didn't set the record straight.

 

Wish some of the younger members would read as carefully as you and Tom. They make me look bad. I'm in a lose/lose situation. Lose if I quibble; lose if I let the statements stand.

what the flerk? first you say there are no mathematicians or physicists reading and then you say backgrounds don't matter. which is it?

I will stand by my prior statements, which you have completely misconstrued, herein.

 

Let's get on-topic with specific logic and math that applies to the dialogue