I assure you, Bukh, that I find those desperate bids for attention you so often engage in by espousing your 'theories' online no less pathetic.

When people sit around and think up physical axioms the way many people do, that's nothing but an exercise in imagination: There's nothing wrong or telling about it (except that it demonstrates some level of imagination). But when people join internet forums and announce their 'theories', or publish pop-science books on them, that demonstrates a bid for attention.

Next, you have the inevitable backlash from people such as myself, Euler, Trout, RobDegraves, AlexG, rpenner, prometheus, bm1957, AlphaNumeric and others. Some people say "Ok, so it was a stupid idea to begin with LOL." and that shows that the attention they seek is satisfied by their ability to converse with people who know more than they. I've seen several people react this way on this forum, and most of them become quite reputable members.
Unfortunately for yourself and others like you, you do not fall into this category. When you are told that your theories are bunk by those who know better, yet continue to insist upon your own validity to science, this demonstrates that the attention you seek is not satisfied by conversation and dialogue. It requires acclaim and praise, and only those who heap these things upon you ever find themselves on your good side.

There is only one type of person who seeks such attention according to every model of psychiatry out there: Those who lack confidence in themselves. You cannot simply feel good about yourself for imaging up a new analogy for physics, your 'theories' must be true, and others must acknowledge your greatness. Whether you were abused as a child, lacked a strong male role model or maybe just weren't good at anything is anyone's guess. I'm no psychiatrist, so I can't look through the posts of any particular crank and make a determination about what their particular pathology might be. But I am a very very well educated autodidact. I know enough psychology to understand that attention seeking behavior is highly indicative of an innate lack of confidence.

Now, many people here like to focus on how others behave, especially (though not exclusively) the cranks. These people have a point: People who are nasty to you have no call to complain when you're nasty right back. And to be sure, quite a bit of the nastiness that exists here is reactionary: Crankbuster A calls Crank B a dumbass, so Crank B calls Crankbuster A a parrot and sockpuppet. But in this case, I don't call you names. I've thus far treated you with respect, and even defended you on several occasions. Yet in the above quoted section, you call me "cute" in a derogatory manner, and then go on to call me "pathetic".

This does nothing at all except evince that your presence here and your discussion of what you cranks like to term "non-mainstream science" falls firmly in the category of pathological attention seeking behavior.

So you go ahead and call me names to your heart's content, even though I've yet to sit around and call you any names. All you're doing is proving how pathetic you yourself are.


Until you find me a single, verifiable example of the universe behaving in a way that is not acknowledged by mainstream science, this means exactly squat.

P.S. I hate to break it to you, but you'll never get those accolades you desire. An ability to do physics is a requisite for anyone doing physics, and there are enough physicists and intelligent amateurs out there to ensure that those who aren't doing physics but claim to be will never be seen as doing it.