dimreepr

This explains nothing and it's certainly not an answer to my question, just more evasion. You say 'swansont's' description of a crackpot doesn't fit you, please, it fits like a glove...

You've basically said all this before, and you've managed to evade the basic question. I'll hold my hands up here, my question was somewhat ambiguous, so let me try to reduce the ambiguity. You say all three of kepler's laws are violated. Here are the laws in brief (copied from wiki):

 

1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of two foci."

 

 

2. "A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."

 

 

3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

 

 

In what way are each of the above violated? For instance how exactly is a planets orbit different to how explained above?

 

 

 

Verification throughtout prediction will confirm there math, other peers have given their Math a positive preliminary look. But I don't know until they predict unknown phenomenon. For example I predict that as the universe is mapped you will see Kepler's Laws violated more often in older galaxies.

I read the link - no it doesnt fit. Evidence and predictions an overview of the process and the concept fits all observation and gives reasons for deductions being correct.

Every law now has reasons behind it. And I created a new one, wave interaction is a contact force!

 

 

Which of Kepler's laws will be violated? and how?

These two tiny bits of evidense is all I need to spring an original idea. And obviously I am having fun with you because it is like one plus one to me and your mindblock ignores the evidence that currently exists which I have stated previously. You ask for the math I say Read the paper by Ma and Wang, you say no evidence and I supply evidence. Yet not one word. Obviously I have step on your crap theory and you don't like it and funny thing you are one in the crowd, not original. Not one question yet that I haven't answered logically you are boring me.

 

And yes I have provided all you stated;

1). Light evidence above

2). Read Ma and Wang paper for math, bone up on Rhe Huygens principle for math- I am not your personal teacher.

3). I have stated some predictions previously either here of forward time. One would be there is no matter in dark matter. Another is mass and energy decrease as space increases. The predictions are so obvious- Kepler's laws will be violated.. duh...

 

According to current thinking the 'Aether' doesn't exist (no evidence). You say you've answered all questions yet my very simple question "How do you know the maths, by Ma and Wang, is correct?" is yet to be answered. Did you even read the OP of the thread I linked to? You seem to be a prime candidate. BTW I'm very sorry I bore you and no you didn't step on my theory, much like you, I never had one. Also you can't teach something you know nothing about i.e. maths.

 

The whole reason that I confirmed that I was right was in part to discovering that physicists ignored their own mathematical equations, their own language. And I confirmed this thru experimentation just to be sure.

 

<...>

It is the correction of understanding because the MATH IS DONE, it is your understanding of the math that is the problem, not mine.....

 

 

<....>

I chose my way because I proved it to myself.

 

All you have done in this entire thread is tell everyone they're wrong and your right and yet you've provided nothing to back up these assertions; except words in the wrong language. You say the maths is done and yet you provide: no equations, no predictions and no evidence.

 

The time is now, my friend, put up or shut up and not just with a re-iteration of your previous posts.

 

I

Did I miss something? I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

If you can not first creatively come ip with the conceptual solution then you can not do the math. I assume 1+1=2 was understood long before it was written down. I understood the concept long before the math but the math is done, I can not take credit for it. It was not done by me. Only the concept is mine, the original thought. The math is done by Ma and Wang.

Please explain what the heck I missed in what you are saying..

The concept is simple

1). All mass and energy decay into gravitational waves, continually emitted creating the actions of space-time.

2). Wave interaction is a contact force, in- phase wave interaction creates the force of gravity.

So Einstein did not know the mechanism of gravity and also he did not know about the actions of dark energy and dark matter. Taking this to completion, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum are incomplete and need refining to include the decay of mass and energy as a function of an emitted wave.. Well that means that General relativity needs another modification to include this and low and behold Professor Ma and Wang have done it.

I copyrighted the entire concept and they have now pit it into the language of physics. To build a car, I need parts, I need to know the order and the understanding of the physics of car building but I do not necessarily have to write out every equation to actually build the car, especially when building and testing something new. The math comes after you have observed, and that is what happened here. I observed and rebuild the universe by explaining the reasons the universe works, mechanically, and Ma and Wang did the math. I just wanted to figure it out, it drove me a little crazy not knowing the mechanism of how it is possible time dialation is possible. Either it was bullcrap or there had to be a concrete understandable explanation. Using only three spactial dimensions I pieced it together.

It is kinda like when someone takes something apart to figure out how it works, the math comes last. In this case, the universe put it together, I conceptually took it apart and Ma and Wang wrote the math for future curious people to see how it works mathematically. In other words, I only claim to understand the mechanism and it all makes sense. The math now confirms what I knew.

 

What part of my, very simple, analogy is tripping you up?

 

How do you know the maths, done by Ma and Wang, is correct?

So try to understand before you criticize without merrit

 

 

If I gave you the manuscript of a French novel (Knowing youdon't speak the language) and an English synopsis and asked for a translation, I know without reading, the results would be wrong. The translation you give me back would be full of inaccuracy and assumptions (of course not your fault). You have admitted you don't have the math so, essentially, the analogy extends to your thesis as the language of physics is maths.

 

Electromagnetic radiation comes in discrete packages called photons. And No I am not interested in a prize but thank you anyhow, very kind of you. And like I said the Huygen's principle can be derived from tMaxwell's equations. Use the Internet. I do not claim to be a great mathematician but I do claim to be able to understand how the universe operates by understanding the two processes that have been overlooked.

One missed process is that all mass and energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave creating the actions of time and space. - 1993 Nobel prize in physics as evidence of gravitational loss in a system- and where do you think that loss came from?

Second; a new process - in phase waves colliding create the action of a wavefront and a reaction of gravity. Gravity is not a direct pulling force but a wave aligning force.

Dark energy and dark matter are predictions of this process along with black hole evaporation and many others, dark flow etc. But you will never find a particle associated with these actions of gravity, and the Dark's

 

Again, thanks for your questions it's fun. This isn't new to me I copyrighted this years ago. I have played the devils advocate more than you ever could ever. Einstein never predicted dark energy or dark matter because he did not know the process,

And as far as the math that does include dark energy and matter, it has now been completed by Prof. Wang and Ma. altering GR to reflect a new field.

Seriously, one process of in-phase wave emission with wave synchrinization explains every action in the universe and you ask less than intelligent questions in my opinion.

Explain to me how you are able to nominate anyone for a Nobel prize or was that a lie?... It works both ways my friend... Of course it was a lie, so maybe one more question from you if you start behaving nicely otherwise I will not respond anymore to YOU.

 

When I came to this forum I was just like you; I had a brilliant idea that needed sharing with mainstream physics. Sadly I was wrong, as are you BTW; maybe this thread will enlighten you as to why.

Whilst I agree that we can learn to be 'happy', I have to side with zappatos on the point that emotions are part of our biological makeup and often, as suggested, hormones are produced without our conscious say so. My personal experience is, through conscious effort, this can reversed by eliminating our expectations and fears (except in, some, genuine cases of bi-polaror clinical depression) and as you suggest, practice.

 

If you're going to assert a position you have to be ready to back it up with evidence, you really can't decide, on a public forum, to dismiss genuine arguments or change the goal-posts to exclude them.

 

 

Have a look at this thread you may find it interesting and possibly parallel, though, I have to warn you I am an atheist.

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. Thisis not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is amemory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern forthe future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and whereeverything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn'tsee the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is donepoorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

 

People will always be people and seldom are the lessons ofhistory learnt, unfortunately.

 

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is toignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could causeharm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and badcensorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone isinvolved in that judgment call.

 

 

The problem when everyone is involved is fear and prudence canbe used to manipulate all of us into accepting far more censorship than isreasonable. As I outlined in the split thread.

 

 

I know your remark was meant as a bit of subtle humor, but a man of your intellect should not lower himself to such a level.

 

 

Yeah 'swansont' how low does your sub go?

I have to wonder, is he trying to throw the fight? Has some shady characters got to him? Or maybe his past has caught up, though I struggle to imagine anything that could be more embarrassing than these recent gaffs.

 

 

Dimreepr, are you asking specifically about phage therapies? As in treatment of bacterial infections? Just lookinjg for clarification, thx.

 

In a word, yes. I have been told there is difficulty inkeeping bacteriophages alive long enough to get them to the

patient here in the west.

 

What are the problems associated with bringing bacterial phage's to market? Is it just a case of keeping them alive long enough? Or are there any issues of possible mutations into something less desirable?

 

I hear through the grapevine that the Russians are running trials, though I have no idea of the validity of this.

They should install ejector seat just for Romney and giveRyan the controls.

 

If you sleep 10-30minutes during the day it is the same as sleeping 3 hours at night

 

What is your evidence to support this assertion?

 

, there is a polyphasic sleep called Siesta: You sleep 4 hours at night and then after lunch you sleep another hour and you will feel great too

 

I'm sorry but this definition would come under the term biphasic not polyphasic and, it seems to me, a result of environmental circumstance rather than a natural pattern.

 

So, I have read about something called polyphasic sleep, and I'm going to try it out, I think it's really something interesting worth charing with the rest of the world, so I will fully document my polyphasic sleep experiement and I would be really happy if you could follow my experiment and discuss some interesting facts about it. In my opinion polyphasic sleep is something that isn't given too much attention, but could easily change our world and our society.

 

https://www.youtube....Xw&feature=plcp

 

 

I suspect polyphasic sleep is effective on a short to medium term basis, however, the tendency in humans to monophasic or biphasic sleep patterns suggests, to me at least, that on a long term basis problems related to sleep deprivation would emerge making it problematic as a long term solution. Or maybe it's a question of genetics and we should follow our natural rhythms . Why do you want to practice this method of sleep, do you not have enough hours in the day?

 

 

http://epub.uni-regensburg.de/19879/

 

 

So predator/prey relationships are not part of environmental fitness? Why not? Aren't predators part of the environment?

 

 

 

The following link seems to indicate that 'bigger is better' when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Since this is not my field I may be misreading the document (or it may not apply here), but I thought I would add this to the discussion. Of course if predator/prey relationships are not part of the environment then my point is moot.

 

 

 

http://www.rockefell...04Cohenpimm.pdf

 

My post was intended as a rebuttal of dmaiski's post #15 and continued assertion, bigger is automatically better. In some circumstances bigger is the evolved method of defence but this is by no means the only method of defence in the predator/prey arms race: Speed agility vigilance foul tasting poison armour spikes, the list goes on. Also with large size comes inherent vulnerability in extreme situations such as drought and food shortages, for instance how many large animals survived the PT extinction event?

 

As for the link you've provided I think Ringer's explanation pretty much covers it, far more eloquently than could I.

 

So predator/prey relationships are not part of environmental fitness? Why not? Aren't predators part of the environment?

 

 

 

The following link seems to indicate that 'bigger is better' when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Since this is not my field I may be misreading the document (or it may not apply here), but I thought I would add this to the discussion. Of course if predator/prey relationships are not part of the environment then my point is moot.

 

 

 

http://www.rockefell...04Cohenpimm.pdf

 

My post was intended as a rebuttal of dmaiski’s post #15 andcontinued assertion, bigger is automatically better. In some circumstancesbigger is the evolved method of defence but this is by no means the only methodof defence in the predator/prey arms race: Speed agility vigilance foul tastingpoison armour spikes, the list goes on. Also with large size comes inherentvulnerability in extreme situations such as drought and food shortages, forinstance how many large animals survived the PT extinction event?

 

As for the link you’ve provided I think Ringer’s explanationpretty much covers it, far more eloquently than could I.

 

Are you hitting the 'back' button on your browser after submitting?...this does it.

 

 

No I have discovered this previously, so I always scroll upand hit 'today's posts'. I am quite convinced the mouse is at fault and is just a coincidence that I have got yet another faulty mouse or perhaps the OS may be the problem, I will re-install and get back to you.

 

Is double posting some sort of disease? If so, I'm infected...

 

 

evolution is a random process,

it evolves creatures in all directions at once

most of these possible creatures die out, simply because they are not feasible, have disadvantageous traits for the environment, or are out competed

 

what is observable:

3600 million years ago earlies known bacteria

1200 million years eukaryotes

600 million years ago multicellular animals

500 million invertebrates, early vertebrates

360 million winged insects

300 million lizards

200-100 million dinosaurs(you know? frigging big things)

100-present mammals dominate ---> humans(again humans are realy smart frigging big things)

i would say that if there was no pressure, or advantage, to being bigger, and more complex

then we would have never evolved from bacteria

i lay no claim as to knowing what the advantage is, how it got there, or where its leading too

(if i did you a. wouldn't understand it b. deny it even exists c. it would be a guess at best)

 

but it dose exist, as shown by the last 4 billion years of history

 

there you go, a firmly supported argument(unless you plan to say the fossil record is all wrong and everything started 5000 ears ago when some extremely powerful, theistic deity farted)

 

if you don't call a 1*10^17 times size increase in under 3 billion years statistical significant, im not sure what would count and would be in favour of hitting you with the evolution brick (take a brick, write evolution on its side with a sharpie)

 

 

Size, in the way you suggest, is primarily a result of predation.The elephant is the size it is as a result of the prey/predator arms race. It has no relation to environmental fitness. When you have dug yourself into a hole the general rule of thumb is, stop digging.

 

hmmm

double posted again maybe it's not a faulty mouse

In a novel I've started, the Earth is slung out of solar orbit. But we are given several years' warning that we will be losing the sun as an energy source. Would it be possible for a scientific-minded individual to build a space suit to protect him for a few hours, at least, from temperatures down to say -150 degrees Celsius, when he ventures out from his underground bunker? At that point we would still have a decent atmosphere - although water vapor, carbon dioxide, and several other gases would have frozen out - so the issue wouldn't be atmospheric pressure, it would be protection from the cold plus oxygen supply. Thanks.

 

 

Sounds like a well insulated diving suit with, not only oxygen but heat, supplied through the umbilical would suffice. It would just depend on how far the explorer intends/needs to go.