Clarification of Unfied Field Theory



 Science > Physics > Clarification of Unfied Field Theory

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: ""
Date: 25 Apr 2005 02:32:42 PM
Object: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory
Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can not
post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional. Lloyd Burris
http://members.fortunecity.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg
or
http://www.geocities.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg
.

User: "Uncle Al"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 04:19:41 PM
wrote:


Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it.

[snip]
Everybody called it "*****."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
User: "The Ghost In The Machine"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 11:00:02 PM
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:19:41 -0700
<426D5EED.DD9E8467@hate.spam.net>:

reactor1967@yahoo.com wrote:


Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it.

[snip]

Everybody called it "*****."

Clear ***** would be an interesting medical condition. I
hope it would not be fatal for the cattle so afflicted... :-)
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 08:06:02 AM
Yeah but nobody can say why its *****. All words no proof.
Uncle Al wrote:

reactor1967@yahoo.com wrote:


Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies

as

some has called it.

[snip]

Everybody called it "*****."


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

.
User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 10:25:10 AM
wrote:

Yeah but nobody can say why its *****.

I gave lots of reasons.

All words no proof.

Proof is for math, not for physics.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.



User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 05:14:04 AM
wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it.

"wild fantasies based on a total lack of knowledge of modern physics"
would be an even better description.

So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof.

What does "scientific proof" mean, in your opinion?

Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start.

And I feel that you need an education in modern physics.

Again I can not
post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional.

Your assertions are so silly that it's hard to know where one even
should start giving arguments against them. Every single line contains
at least one falsehood ,one totally unsupported assertion and/or one
incomprehensible statement.
For starters: you apparently don't know what "energy" actually means
in physics. If you think you do know that, please tell us.
You apparently don't know what "electromagnetic energy" is. If you
think you do know that, please tell us.
You don't explain what exactly is oscillating there (you *do* know
that a wave is a propagating oscillation of something, don't you?)
You don't explain what "space is disturbed" even is supposed to mean.
You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?
You don't explain how a wave could create gravity. Lower down, you
seem to say that gravity is caused by space "pushing" us. Make up your
mind.
You don't explain how gravity could make this sea of energy "come to
us at different speeds", and what on earth that has to do with the
passage of time for us.
"with speed we cut through this sea of energy at different speeds"
is incomprehensible word salad.
First you say that gravity is created by these strange waves, then you
say it is caused by mass. Make up your mind.
How exactly is mass "made up of this sea of energy"?
"made up ... in greater quantities than it normally is in empty
space": So you are talking about non-empty space here? It is totally
incomprehensible what you mean here.
"space pushes in on all sides...": what on earth is this supposed to
mean? "push in"???
And if space "pushes" the Moon towards the Earth, how could it
*simultaneously* push the Earth and the Moon towards the Sun?
"...so in space we just hang there and float": how on earth does this
follow? And: didn't you notice that we are *always* "in space", hence
according to you, we should *always* "hang there and float"? If you
meant only *empty* space here, why didn't you say that?
The next sentence seems to imply that you think that gravity is caused
by space "pushing us". How does it manage to do that? Ever heard of
actio=reactio?
BTW, theories attempting to describe gravity as a "push" have been
tried for centuries. They don't work. See for one simple argument above.
"The further we are away from the mass the less we experience
gravity." Feel free to derive the inverse square law for gravity from
your model.
"As a case in point science knows that normal light is
electro-magnetic energy or waves." That is *vaguely* right and shows
nicely that you never actually bothered to learn physics - all your
knowledge comes from popular science sources, right?
"They know that light can become gamma rays..." What on earth are you
talking about? Perhaps inverse Compton scattering?
"...and that gamma rays can become matter." Do you mean pair creation,
or what?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
User: "Schoenfeld"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 12:30:31 PM
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Rigour is to physicists what morality is to men.



Bye,
Bjoern

.

User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 09:21:34 AM
Energy =The capacity for doing work. Forms of energy include thermal,
mechanical, electrical, and chemical. Energy may be transformed from
one form into another.
Electrical energy or electromagnetic energy is a form of energy present
in any electric field or magnetic field, or in any volume containing
electromagnetic radiation.
You don't explain what exactly is oscillating there (you *do* know
that a wave is a propagating oscillation of something, don't you?)
Yes, I know
By distrubing space I mean by mass taking up space or by the creation
of electromagnetic energy.
You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist? Your right time would have
to exist for a wave to progate. I would say space by itself has its
own fluctuations but gravity or mass traveling through space somehow
affect these fluctations thus affecting time
You don't explain how a wave could create gravity. Lower down, you
seem to say that gravity is caused by space "pushing" us. Make up your
mind. Let me back up. Particles of matter like electrons have wave
properties. Looking at it microscopically as possible what you see is
waves. These waves can break down into even smaller particles known as
quarks. Gamma rays which are electromagnetic themselves when they hit
matter become particles. So, particles or matter is made up of
electromagnetic energy and these particles make up mass. Mass takes up
space changing the way space behaves on objects thus causing gravity.
You don't explain how gravity could make this sea of energy "come to
us at different speeds", and what on earth that has to do with the
passage of time for us. Again what I said while ago space by itself
has its own fluctuations but gravity or mass traveling through space
somehow affect these fluctations thus affecting time. When mass travels
through space its cutting through these fluctuations. The speed of the
mass cause these fluctuations to impact the mass at a speed dependant
on the speed of the mass. Have you ever been on a fast moving boat on a
lake with waves. A fast moving boat hits these waves more frequently
than if the boat was moving slower. Gravity also affects the
fluctuations of normal space.
Im going to skip some of your other questions because I just explained
them in my past answers here.
"space pushes in on all sides...": what on earth is this supposed to
mean? "push in"??? Maybe not push as you or I know it but in space
with no large mass around objects float in space. That is because space
is equal on all sides of the object. With a large mass like a planet
around this is not the case. Without a large mass space is equal in all
directions but with a large mass present the flow/ fluctuations of
normal space has to go around the planet and like a car traveling
through wind or sitting in the wind these fluctuations coming away from
the planet are different than the fluctuations of normal space by the
object. So, the object is pushed toward the large mass by the
difference between the fluctuations of space around the object. They
are no longer equal in all directions. Space between the object and the
planet is different than the space between the object and the rest of
intersteller space.
Popular science is not my only reading. And yes I really should try to
explain myself better than I do I will give everyone that. But I really
do believe that what makes up matter and energy is the same thing that
the quantum vacuum is made of.
.
User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 10:39:12 AM
wrote:
Please try to get your attributions right.

Energy =The capacity for doing work. Forms of energy include thermal,
mechanical, electrical, and chemical. Energy may be transformed from
one form into another.

Electrical energy or electromagnetic energy is a form of energy present
in any electric field or magnetic field, or in any volume containing
electromagnetic radiation.

Congratulations, you got at least that right.
And now please tell me how "the capacity to do work" can form a sea,
and how on earth that sea could be space.

You don't explain what exactly is oscillating there (you *do* know
that a wave is a propagating oscillation of something, don't you?)


Yes, I know

So, what is oscillating in your model?

By distrubing space I mean by mass taking up space or by the creation
of electromagnetic energy.

This sentence does not even make sense grammatically. I have no clue
what it is supposed to mean. Please rephrase it.

You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?


Your right time would have to exist for a wave to progate.

So, do you drop your claim that the waves *create* time?

I would say space by itself has its own fluctuations

Then you have something in which you agree with people working on
Quantum Gravity.

but gravity or mass traveling through space

What does "gravity traveling through space" mean?

somehow affect these fluctations thus affecting time

Yes, the presence of mass affects time. That's General Relativity.

You don't explain how a wave could create gravity. Lower down, you
seem to say that gravity is caused by space "pushing" us. Make up your
mind.


Let me back up. Particles of matter like electrons have wave
properties.

Indeed. Do you know what exactly that means, and how that can be shown
experimentally?

Looking at it microscopically as possible what you see is
waves.

Wrong.
"looking at it as microscopically as possible" means essentially by
using high-energy scattering. And in such scattering processes,
electrons behave essentially like point-like particles, not like waves.

These waves can break down into even smaller particles

How could a wave break down into particles???
What do you even mean with a wave "breaking down"???

known as quarks.

So you assert that electrons are composed of quarks, or what?

Gamma rays which are electromagnetic themselves when they hit
matter become particles.

Vaguely right. You probably mean pair production?

So, particles or matter is made up of electromagnetic energy

Non sequitur. You said yourself in the beginning that different forms
of energy can be transformed into each other, so the fact that
particles can be created from electromagnetic energy does in no way
show that particles are made up of that energy.

and these particles make up mass.

It's the other way round. Mass is a property of particles.
Did you mean "these particles make up matter"?

Mass takes up
space changing the way space behaves on objects thus causing gravity.

Agreed. That's General Relativity.

You don't explain how gravity could make this sea of energy "come to
us at different speeds", and what on earth that has to do with the
passage of time for us.


Again what I said while ago space by itself
has its own fluctuations but gravity or mass traveling through space
somehow affect these fluctations thus affecting time. When mass travels
through space its cutting through these fluctuations.

How? Why?
A moving mass has always to stay *in* space (essentially due the
definition of space!). So if there are ripples in space, masses most
follow these ripples; they can't simply cut through them! That would
put the mass outside of space, and how on earth could that be possible?

The speed of the
mass cause these fluctuations to impact the mass at a speed dependant
on the speed of the mass. Have you ever been on a fast moving boat on a
lake with waves. A fast moving boat hits these waves more frequently
than if the boat was moving slower.

Yes. But what makes you think that this analogy works also for "waves
in space"?
Have you ever heard of Special Relativity, especially about how
velocities are added in it?

Gravity also affects the fluctuations of normal space.

What is "normal" space, compared to "anormal" space?

Im going to skip some of your other questions because I just explained
them in my past answers here.

"space pushes in on all sides...": what on earth is this supposed to
mean? "push in"???


Maybe not push as you or I know it but in space
with no large mass around objects float in space. That is because space
is equal on all sides of the object.

What does "space is equal on all sides" mean?

With a large mass like a planet
around this is not the case. Without a large mass space is equal in all
directions but with a large mass present the flow/ fluctuations of
normal space

What is the "flow of normal space"? Where does it come from?

has to go around the planet and like a car traveling
through wind or sitting in the wind these fluctuations coming away from
the planet are different than the fluctuations of normal space by the
object.

So, e.g. the "flow of space" pushes the Moon towards the Earth. How
does it manage simultaneously to push the Moon and the Earth towards
the Sun?
[snip]

Popular science is not my only reading.

What have you read so far?

And yes I really should try to
explain myself better than I do I will give everyone that. But I really
do believe that what makes up matter and energy is the same thing that
the quantum vacuum is made of.

And what does "quantum vacuum" mean, in your opinion?
BTW: stating a belief does not make a physical theory.
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Lefty"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 02 May 2005 08:24:47 PM

Popular science is not my only reading. And yes I really should try to
explain myself better than I do I will give everyone that. But I really
do believe that what makes up matter and energy is the same thing that
the quantum vacuum is made of.

If you are referring to "dimension", then I would have to agree with you. I
could quite easily imagine that the only thing which really exists is
dimension, and that all energy (&matter) is just waves being propogated
through Minkowski (3+1) spacetime.
If that's what you meant, then I definately agree.
But I do not think that EM is the fundamental building block of all energy.
The wave is more general and fundamental thing than EM, which is a special
variety of wave behaviour.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 09:57:56 AM
You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?
Time is a function of the quantum fluctuations of space itself. Just
like a computer chip functions with an internal frequency time passes
slow or fast depending on frequency of the quantum vacuum. This
frequency changes for a crew of people if they were to travel at a
fraction of the speed of light. So too does gravity affect this
frequency of the quantum vacuum thus affecting time.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

reactor1967@yahoo.com wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies

as

some has called it.


"wild fantasies based on a total lack of knowledge of modern physics"
would be an even better description.


So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof.


What does "scientific proof" mean, in your opinion?


Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start.


And I feel that you need an education in modern physics.


Again I can not
post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional.


Your assertions are so silly that it's hard to know where one even
should start giving arguments against them. Every single line

contains

at least one falsehood ,one totally unsupported assertion and/or one
incomprehensible statement.


For starters: you apparently don't know what "energy" actually means
in physics. If you think you do know that, please tell us.


You apparently don't know what "electromagnetic energy" is. If you
think you do know that, please tell us.


You don't explain what exactly is oscillating there (you *do* know
that a wave is a propagating oscillation of something, don't you?)


You don't explain what "space is disturbed" even is supposed to mean.


You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?


You don't explain how a wave could create gravity. Lower down, you
seem to say that gravity is caused by space "pushing" us. Make up

your

mind.


You don't explain how gravity could make this sea of energy "come to
us at different speeds", and what on earth that has to do with the
passage of time for us.


"with speed we cut through this sea of energy at different speeds"
is incomprehensible word salad.


First you say that gravity is created by these strange waves, then

you

say it is caused by mass. Make up your mind.


How exactly is mass "made up of this sea of energy"?


"made up ... in greater quantities than it normally is in empty
space": So you are talking about non-empty space here? It is totally
incomprehensible what you mean here.


"space pushes in on all sides...": what on earth is this supposed to
mean? "push in"???

And if space "pushes" the Moon towards the Earth, how could it
*simultaneously* push the Earth and the Moon towards the Sun?


"...so in space we just hang there and float": how on earth does this
follow? And: didn't you notice that we are *always* "in space", hence
according to you, we should *always* "hang there and float"? If you
meant only *empty* space here, why didn't you say that?


The next sentence seems to imply that you think that gravity is

caused

by space "pushing us". How does it manage to do that? Ever heard of
actio=reactio?

BTW, theories attempting to describe gravity as a "push" have been
tried for centuries. They don't work. See for one simple argument

above.



"The further we are away from the mass the less we experience
gravity." Feel free to derive the inverse square law for gravity from
your model.


"As a case in point science knows that normal light is
electro-magnetic energy or waves." That is *vaguely* right and shows
nicely that you never actually bothered to learn physics - all your
knowledge comes from popular science sources, right?


"They know that light can become gamma rays..." What on earth are you
talking about? Perhaps inverse Compton scattering?


"...and that gamma rays can become matter." Do you mean pair

creation,

or what?



Bye,
Bjoern

.
User: "Schoenfeld"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 12:48:05 PM
wrote:

You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?
Time is a function of the quantum fluctuations of space itself.

Since a quantum fluctuation is a disparity of a time-evolving state,
how can time be a function of that disparity? Without time, there would
be no change to begin with.

Just
like a computer chip functions with an internal frequency time passes
slow or fast depending on frequency of the quantum vacuum.

The processer frequency is a essentially measure of time. Your analogy
breaks down because you are trying to define time in a circular and
invalid way.

This
frequency changes for a crew of people if they were to travel at a
fraction of the speed of light. So too does gravity affect this
frequency of the quantum vacuum thus affecting time.

.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 10:40:51 AM
wrote:

You don't explain how such a wave could create time. How could a wave
propagate if time does not already exist?


Time is a function of the quantum fluctuations of space itself.

What exactly do you mean with "function" here?
What exactly do you mean with "quantum fluctuations of space itself"?

Just like a computer chip functions with an internal frequency time passes
slow or fast depending on frequency of the quantum vacuum.

What exactly do you mean with "frequency of the quantum vacuum"?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.



User: "Jim Black"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 06:45:01 PM
wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can

not

post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional. Lloyd Burris

http://members.fortunecity.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg
or
http://www.geocities.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg

Theories about gravity operating by masses blocking things constantly
coming from all directions do not work. See:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath131/kmath131.htm
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 03:02:32 PM
wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can

not

post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional. Lloyd Burris

http://members.fortunecity.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg
or
http://www.geocities.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg

Yes, and your notions are very good for a Gr. 6 student,
but by Gr.8 some of the relations you present are to
ambiguous to consider, IOW's an exactitude is needed.
What Grade are you in? (2nd time I asked).
Ken S. Tucker
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 11:36:38 PM
Well since your not going to prove my wrong I guess I am in a higher
grade than you. I have had 6 years of college if you really need to
know. Take care. Lloyd Burris
.
User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 02:58:10 AM
wrote:

Well since your not going to prove my wrong

So you simply ignore what I wrote?

I guess I am in a higher
grade than you. I have had 6 years of college if you really need to
know. Take care. Lloyd Burris

Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or what? Is this someone of the
real physicists here simply posing as a crank?
Or is this man *really* this stupid?
Bye,
Bjoern
.

User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 11:53:48 PM
wrote:

Well since your not going to prove my wrong I guess I am in a higher
grade than you. I have had 6 years of college if you really need to
know. Take care. Lloyd Burris

This is embarrassing, Burris. Six years of college and no science!
The English is not so good either. Your stuff is so wrong that folks
aren't going to even look... it's down the toilet!
.



User: "yt56erd"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 05:52:20 PM
wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can

not

post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional. Lloyd Burris

http://members.fortunecity.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg
or
http://www.geocities.com/reactor1967/btheory.jpg

all arguments are potentially valid. you will only know when you hear
them.
why cant you post copyrighted materials here? are you the copyright
holder? if not is it really your theory........................
.
User: "Lefty"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 08:41:32 PM

Well, I had to go back and try to clarifiy my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can

not

post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes. Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional. Lloyd Burris

I disagree with this theory because you state that
"Everything in the universe is made from electromagnetic energy".
Clearly, there are waves which are not electromagnetic, and there are also
dimensions of length and time.
Length is not composed of electromagnetic energy.
Time is not composed of electromagnetic energy.
Lefty.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 09:27:36 AM
I disagree with this theory because you state that
"Everything in the universe is made from electromagnetic energy".
Clearly, there are waves which are not electromagnetic, and there are
also
dimensions of length and time.
Length is not composed of electromagnetic energy.
Time is not composed of electromagnetic energy.
Good answer instead of cutting me down you actually give me a good
valid argument. Thank you thank you thank you. I will think about your
argument. Right now you have me on this one.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 08:08:08 AM
Im the holder and it is my theory but I want to keep it where I have
it.
.
User: "Lefty"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 28 Apr 2005 08:30:46 PM

Im the holder and it is my theory but I want to keep it where I have
it.

That's cool - I dont think that you'll find too many people copying it until
it makes sense.
Hopefully it will one day, but certainly length and time are not composed of
EM energy.
.



User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 02:59:26 PM
wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarify my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can not
post copyrighted material

Why not! copyrighted material material can be disseminated without the
loss of copyright.
What is located at your links is nonsense... total nonsense, garbage,
rubbish. It's worse than Potter's crap, registered at crank dot net!
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 11:34:56 PM
The person who registered at crank dot net was myself who owns the
websight. I registered myself as a joke. As far as what you have said
you can not prove anything you have said. You can,t prove it and your
not going to prove it. Your the joke my friend. Lloyd Burris
Sam Wormley wrote:

reactor1967@yahoo.com wrote:

Well, I had to go back and try to clarify my theory or Hypothies as
some has called it. So here it is reposted. Later I may try as some
have suggested give more mathematical or scientific proof. Sadly my
time is very limited but I feel im off to a good start. Again I can

not

post copyrighted material


Why not! copyrighted material material can be disseminated without

the

loss of copyright.

What is located at your links is nonsense... total nonsense,

garbage,

rubbish. It's worse than Potter's crap, registered at crank dot

net!
.
User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 11:46:53 PM
wrote:

The person who registered at crank dot net was myself who owns the
web sight. I registered myself as a joke. As far as what you have said
you can not prove anything you have said. You can,t prove it and your
not going to prove it. Your the joke my friend. Lloyd Burris

Your posting record (and your web page image) speaks for itself.
Amateurish rubbish! You should be embarrassed, Lloyd.
.

User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 27 Apr 2005 02:56:22 AM
wrote:

The person who registered at crank dot net was myself who owns the
websight. I registered myself as a joke. As far as what you have said
you can not prove anything you have said. You can,t prove it and your
not going to prove it. Your the joke my friend. Lloyd Burris

Suggestion: first try to learn to write English correctly. Then learn
some physics. Then cover in shame when thinking again about the
nonsense you wrote.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.



User: "Puppet_Sock"

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 25 Apr 2005 03:00:59 PM
wrote:
[snip]

Again I can not
post copyrighted material but here are the links to the pics that
explain my theory/hypothes.

Why anybody would bother copyrighting that blather is very
difficult to understand. It's not even clear enough to be
"not even wrong."

Again, attack my theory with valid
arguments anything else is unprofessional.

Your screed is not even written in complete sentences. You have
absolutely no description of how to calculate anything, so you
have no ability to make predictions of any sort. You do not even
have a hypothesis, just a short very poorly written paragraph,
and a non-sensical diagram of some waves.
Go thou and learn. Return when you have done so.
Socks
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Clarification of Unfied Field Theory 26 Apr 2005 11:37:41 PM
I grant you it could better. I will give you that. Lloyd Burris
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER