I noticed you never attempted to describe my quantum, yet highly philosophical theory of the ''Psychonia Theory, i admirally call; the column should be known to you, its here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=89857&page=3
Why did you never try to disprove it like you promised you would ( : at the last page it had the final mkathematical forumulism as a proof).
One word: awesome.
QUOTE (Euler+Mar 8 2009, 07:39 PM)
One word: awesome.
In what sense sir?
In what sense sir?
'Psychonia Theory' - why is it awesome...
The depth of vision, the technical subtlety and most of all, the sublime delivery.
The depth of vision, the technical subtlety and most of all, the sublime delivery.
This thread should be deleted.
QUOTE (Euler+Mar 8 2009, 07:51 PM)
'Psychonia Theory' - why is it awesome...
The depth of vision, the technical subtlety and most of all, the sublime delivery.
I guess you are just being sarcastic, because we get a lot of thatn round here, so it's hard to tell some times.
The depth of vision, the technical subtlety and most of all, the sublime delivery.
I guess you are just being sarcastic, because we get a lot of thatn round here, so it's hard to tell some times.
Ah the 'You didn't reply, therefore I'm right' logic. Nothing in your work is worth wiping your backside with. You don't know any quantum mechanics, so your claims of being ahead of anyone here in terms of understanding/doing quantum theories of conciousness is complete BS. You have previously shown you don't know how to even multiiply out brackets, after you claimed (a-ib)(a+ib) = a^2 - b^2 + 2abi, and further compounded your lies by claiming Dr Wolf backed you up. You've demonstrated you don't know any vector calculus, so the claim of knowing how to do relativity is completely wrong and there's a great many examples of you being explicitly proven wrong.
And you should know that providing a mathematical derivation of a result is not proof a theory of physics is right, it's proof that the axioms you use for your theory imply a particular result. Proving an equation doesn't prove that is how nature is.
The final post in that thread is nothing but gibberish. You just put together random equations, knowing full well that its harder to debunk complete vomitous crap than it is to debunk coherent logic which has an honest mistake in, because the latter uses logic, the former does not.
And this thread is proof about my comments about you, that you craze attention. You proclaim you'll not communicate with me any more than, the same afternoon, you post a thread with my name in the title, demanding my attention.
If your work is right, why haven't you gotten it published in a journal? Where have you submitted it? If nowhere, why? If you are confident in your knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics do you agree to answer a few short questions on them, thus proving you can do at least 1st year homeworks in those topics? Your 'mathematical proof' uses integration a couple of times. I've got to make a class of 1st years doing 2nd order linear ODEs tomorrow, how about I ask you a few of the questions they get asked and see if you can do them?
But if you want a specific thing to blow apart your entire post over on SciForums you attempt to subtract two inequalities from one another. That's mathematical nonsense. Therefore all that follows from that is meaningless. Thus the post is wrong. QED.
Now its your turn to post some pathetic excuse why you can't spend 20 minutes doing homework questions 1st years do, but you've got a 'space-time theory of conciousness'.
And you should know that providing a mathematical derivation of a result is not proof a theory of physics is right, it's proof that the axioms you use for your theory imply a particular result. Proving an equation doesn't prove that is how nature is.
The final post in that thread is nothing but gibberish. You just put together random equations, knowing full well that its harder to debunk complete vomitous crap than it is to debunk coherent logic which has an honest mistake in, because the latter uses logic, the former does not.
And this thread is proof about my comments about you, that you craze attention. You proclaim you'll not communicate with me any more than, the same afternoon, you post a thread with my name in the title, demanding my attention.
If your work is right, why haven't you gotten it published in a journal? Where have you submitted it? If nowhere, why? If you are confident in your knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics do you agree to answer a few short questions on them, thus proving you can do at least 1st year homeworks in those topics? Your 'mathematical proof' uses integration a couple of times. I've got to make a class of 1st years doing 2nd order linear ODEs tomorrow, how about I ask you a few of the questions they get asked and see if you can do them?
But if you want a specific thing to blow apart your entire post over on SciForums you attempt to subtract two inequalities from one another. That's mathematical nonsense. Therefore all that follows from that is meaningless. Thus the post is wrong. QED.
Now its your turn to post some pathetic excuse why you can't spend 20 minutes doing homework questions 1st years do, but you've got a 'space-time theory of conciousness'.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 8 2009, 10:01 PM)
Ah the 'You didn't reply, therefore I'm right' logic. Nothing in your work is worth wiping your backside with. You don't know any quantum mechanics, so your claims of being ahead of anyone here in terms of understanding/doing quantum theories of conciousness is complete BS. You have previously shown you don't know how to even multiiply out brackets, after you claimed (a-ib)(a+ib) = a^2 - b^2 + 2abi, and further compounded your lies by claiming Dr Wolf backed you up. You've demonstrated you don't know any vector calculus, so the claim of knowing how to do relativity is completely wrong and there's a great many examples of you being explicitly proven wrong.
And you should know that providing a mathematical derivation of a result is not proof a theory of physics is right, it's proof that the axioms you use for your theory imply a particular result. Proving an equation doesn't prove that is how nature is.
The final post in that thread is nothing but gibberish. You just put together random equations, knowing full well that its harder to debunk complete vomitous crap than it is to debunk coherent logic which has an honest mistake in, because the latter uses logic, the former does not.
And this thread is proof about my comments about you, that you craze attention. You proclaim you'll not communicate with me any more than, the same afternoon, you post a thread with my name in the title, demanding my attention.
If your work is right, why haven't you gotten it published in a journal? Where have you submitted it? If nowhere, why? If you are confident in your knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics do you agree to answer a few short questions on them, thus proving you can do at least 1st year homeworks in those topics? Your 'mathematical proof' uses integration a couple of times. I've got to make a class of 1st years doing 2nd order linear ODEs tomorrow, how about I ask you a few of the questions they get asked and see if you can do them?
But if you want a specific thing to blow apart your entire post over on SciForums you attempt to subtract two inequalities from one another. That's mathematical nonsense. Therefore all that follows from that is meaningless. Thus the post is wrong. QED.
Now its your turn to post some pathetic excuse why you can't spend 20 minutes doing homework questions 1st years do, but you've got a 'space-time theory of conciousness'.
Not even string theorists (in the making mind you), simply does not impress me at all. The lack of witt within your post iks sending me to sleep. Fu&k the valium, who needs it when your around.
....yawn... and yeh, you could't mathematically disprove it - JUST LIKE the way you challenged me on the model of one.
Goodnight
And you should know that providing a mathematical derivation of a result is not proof a theory of physics is right, it's proof that the axioms you use for your theory imply a particular result. Proving an equation doesn't prove that is how nature is.
The final post in that thread is nothing but gibberish. You just put together random equations, knowing full well that its harder to debunk complete vomitous crap than it is to debunk coherent logic which has an honest mistake in, because the latter uses logic, the former does not.
And this thread is proof about my comments about you, that you craze attention. You proclaim you'll not communicate with me any more than, the same afternoon, you post a thread with my name in the title, demanding my attention.
If your work is right, why haven't you gotten it published in a journal? Where have you submitted it? If nowhere, why? If you are confident in your knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics do you agree to answer a few short questions on them, thus proving you can do at least 1st year homeworks in those topics? Your 'mathematical proof' uses integration a couple of times. I've got to make a class of 1st years doing 2nd order linear ODEs tomorrow, how about I ask you a few of the questions they get asked and see if you can do them?
But if you want a specific thing to blow apart your entire post over on SciForums you attempt to subtract two inequalities from one another. That's mathematical nonsense. Therefore all that follows from that is meaningless. Thus the post is wrong. QED.
Now its your turn to post some pathetic excuse why you can't spend 20 minutes doing homework questions 1st years do, but you've got a 'space-time theory of conciousness'.
Not even string theorists (in the making mind you), simply does not impress me at all. The lack of witt within your post iks sending me to sleep. Fu&k the valium, who needs it when your around.
....yawn... and yeh, you could't mathematically disprove it - JUST LIKE the way you challenged me on the model of one.
Goodnight
Why do I need wit when you make yourself look stupid without any help from me? And obviously you didn't bother reading my post because I did disprove it mathematically. And, as my post explained, simply jumbling together various random equations doesn't make you right. You ignored my questions about journals and peer review. Obviously you don't want to admit you either haven't submitted it or its already been rejected.
QUOTE (Photino+Mar 9 2009, 03:14 AM)
Not even string theorists (in the making mind you), simply does not impress me at all.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
QUOTE (bm1957+Mar 9 2009, 03:47 AM)
What does this mean?
It doesn't mean much.
It's just adolescent posing.
It doesn't mean much.
It's just adolescent posing.
QUOTE (bm1957+Mar 9 2009, 08:47 AM)
What does this mean?
It means that aphanumeric does not impress me (since he is the string-theorist i was referring to) in my modestly sarcastic tone i like to rapor with.
It means that aphanumeric does not impress me (since he is the string-theorist i was referring to) in my modestly sarcastic tone i like to rapor with.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 9 2009, 06:17 PM)
It doesn't mean much.
It's just adolescent posing.
Yes... indeed. The only way one can mentally-interact around here with most posters.
So what was your point? I'm one of them, because if i am, i could name a few... oh... say like ''George''.
It's just adolescent posing.
Yes... indeed. The only way one can mentally-interact around here with most posters.
So what was your point? I'm one of them, because if i am, i could name a few... oh... say like ''George''.
QUOTE (Photino+Mar 9 2009, 01:45 PM)
Yes... indeed. The only way one can mentally-interact around here with most posters.
So what was your point? I'm one of them, because if i am, i could name a few... oh... say like ''George''.
All teen agers think they're smarter than the rest of the world.
You're nothing unusual.
So what was your point? I'm one of them, because if i am, i could name a few... oh... say like ''George''.
All teen agers think they're smarter than the rest of the world.
You're nothing unusual.
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 9 2009, 06:48 PM)
All teen agers think they're smarter than the rest of the world.
You're nothing unusual.
Just like the proverbial crazy man who thinks it's the world that insane
You're nothing unusual.
Just like the proverbial crazy man who thinks it's the world that insane
QUOTE (Photino+Mar 9 2009, 07:34 PM)
Just like the proverbial crazy man who thinks it's the world that insane
Only in your case, it might just have gone past a proverb.
Only in your case, it might just have gone past a proverb.
Alex is into mental health.
I say if you need a psyciatrist you ought to have your head examined alex.
Mitch Raemsch
I say if you need a psyciatrist you ought to have your head examined alex.
Mitch Raemsch
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.