Loony Physics

[Janus20]

Newton and Einstein both got it all wrong. Only a mega genius could get so utterly screwed up as Albert.

The conservation of energy is rule wrong. Both thermodynamic laws are wrong. The future for Physicists depends upon when the patience for bullshit and ignorance runs dry.

The Quantum mechanics solution is quite simply .......... A RESONANT PERPETUAL MOTION ENGINE THAT IS DRIVEN BY AND NOT PREVENTED BY ITS OWN LOSSES.

Many such engine cycles are shown at www.unifiedtheory.org.uk . They all have a resonant power factor of 45 degrees and are correct for both MASSIVE and ATOMIC structures.

Physicists greet this with a thunder of silence. They are united in moral, emotional and an intellectual degeneracy. It will never go away. It is so true.

[Toptunov]

Physics is an ocean full of fishes, some are conservative other are progressist, but it seems overexaggerated to assume a general mendacity.

For example, your statements about Newton and Einstien are impressive, but not deeply explained.

What do you fear, a worldwide conspiracy?
A diffuse intellectual disonesty?

What scientists currently believe is that there is not a perfect model, but a competition between different mathematical models to better fit reality.

According to several evidencies Einstein provided a theory better than Newton, but he will be probably be overcome by other scientists in a neverending race towards the best model.

So what do you exactly mean with your statements?
Can you explain it better and let me suggest in a more polite manner?
If they are consistent be sure someone will take them in consideration.

[Epsilon=One]

Physics is an ocean full of fishes, some are conservative other are progressist, but it seems overexaggerated to assume a general mendacity.

For example, your statements about Newton and Einstien are impressive, but not deeply explained.

What do you fear, a worldwide conspiracy?
A diffuse intellectual disonesty?

What scientists currently believe is that there is not a perfect model, but a competition between different mathematical models to better fit reality.

According to several evidencies Einstein provided a theory better than Newton, but he will be probably be overcome by other scientists in a neverending race towards the best model.

So what do you exactly mean with your statements?
Can you explain it better and let me suggest in a more polite manner?
If they are consistent be sure someone will take them in consideration.Thanks. I didn't know quite how to comment. You handled my problem with great adroitness.

[Toptunov]

It's me and the other users who should thank you, Y1, for keeping constantly high the level of this forum through interesting and original interventions.

[OfficeShredder]

www.unifiedtheory.org.uk

I'll be honest, I gave it a look. Then stopped on line three, where they confused energy and power. Now I see how they got 45 times as much power as they put in

[Epsilon=One]

I'll be honest, I gave it a look. Then stopped on line three, where they confused energy and power. Now I see how they got 45 times as much power as they put inRe: www.unifiedtheory.org.uk (http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk )

I understand your dismissal.

I spent a lot of time reading the theory . . . and then looking at it again to try to figure out what I must be missing. It certainly is far from "a Theory of Everything"; there is a lot of conventional physics that won't reconcile mixed with some innovative thought that doesn't seem to very clearly define the most fundamental of concepts.

A quick perusal did find much that was interesting and painstakingly thought through that probably should warrant some consideration. Like you, there was much that also disturbed me. But, then, much usually does.

I started a critique; and, soon got lost and overwhelmed. Possibly in a day or two I can figure out how to comment better and possible find some merit while overlooking the faults.

I'd be hypocritical to dismiss the theory out of hand; there is some of its alternative thought that rang true.

Though, I too am unhappy with the pomo elite, it's difficult to understand what merits the attitude of Janus20 towards the true pioneers of science.

[Janus20]

I'll be honest, I gave it a look. Then stopped on line three, where they confused energy and power. Now I see how they got 45 times as much power as they put in

You stopped at line three because you were out of your depth at line one.

"I" who are your "they" have NEVER, NEVER, EVER "put power in" and it is therefore utterly impossible for "me", your "they", to claim 45 TIMES MORE OUT. Your imagination has tripped and flown. THE QUOTED 45 ARE THE DEGREES OF POWER FACTOR

You have gone "FORUM DOOFOIDAL", and in your desire to radiate posting and posturing wisdom, have merely confirmed a devotion to shallow and totally bizarre gobbledegookery.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

O.K. other then some bad language well, the main reasons why there are no perpetual motion machines (other then the Universe itself) is friction, (As induced BY gravity) and that would need be overcome or eliminated for any machine to replicate what the Universe does, perpetual Motion.

Secondly, you have a diagram of a Neutron and a Proton, if you haven't taken into account that it is the Neutron that IS the Gravitational Particle then your answer is ...at best ....Incomplete.

Signed: The Discoverer of the Gravitational Particle (moi) AKA the Neutron.

Have a Nice day.

[Epsilon=One]

You stopped at line three because you were out of your depth at line one.

...Your imagination has tripped and flown.

You have gone "FORUM DOOFOIDAL", and in your desire to radiate posting and posturing wisdom, have merely confirmed a devotion to shallow and totally bizarre gobbledegookery.You are making assumptions that well may be unwarranted. It is possible to rebut a comment without attitude and ad hominem comments, which do nothing to further your argument . . . and, probably, weaken it.

THE QUOTED 45 ARE THE DEGREES OF POWER FACTORAgain, I agree with your rebuttal; however, uppercase red is hardly the format of intellectual dialogue.

You have a very difficult sell with your theory for reasons that I have pointed out, which you have not bothered to reply to, while finding time to take a few "cheap shots" that well may be directed to something that was no more than a misunderstanding.

Don't drive those away that may be able to help. Quite often you'll find your greatest help from those that were once adversaries. Sycophants advance very little that is worthwhile.

[Epsilon=One]

O.K. other then some bad language well, the main reasons why there are no perpetual motion machines (other then the Universe itself) is friction, (As induced BY gravity) and that would need be overcome or eliminated for any machine to replicate what the Universe does, perpetual Motion.I agree. Also, it would seem that a Universe so defined must be a singularity, which has some deep, subtle implications, if a singularity is to be defined as something of which there is only . . . one.

...you have a diagram of a Neutron and a Proton, if you haven't taken into account that it is the Neutron that IS the Gravitational Particle then your answer is ...at best ....Incomplete.If there is mass, there must be gravitational effects.

Signed: The Discoverer of the Gravitational Particle (moi) AKA the Neutron.Do you believe the Neutron the only subatomic particle that is a "Gravitational Particle"? If so, how do you define "Gravitational" and "Particle"?

Have a Nice day.And, as much to you.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I agree. Also, it would seem that a Universe so defined must be a singularity, which has some deep, subtle implications, if a singularity is to be defined as something of which there is only . . . one.
If there is mass, there must be gravitational effects.
Do you believe the Neutron the only subatomic particle that is a "Gravitational Particle"? If so, how do you define "Gravitational" and "Particle"? And, as much to you.Wasn't talking to you...


GO
AWAY

[Epsilon=One]

Wasn't talking to you...The issue is not who you are addressing on a public forum.

The issues that you are evading are the questions in my Post #10 that you have deceptively edited in your Post #11.

Are you evading the direct questions because you agree or disagee or are you confused and don't understand?

Rather than evading or deceiving; wouldn't your dignity be better preserved by ignoring the questions without a histrionic, nonsensical response?

[Janus20]

Don't drive those away that may be able to help. Quite often you'll find your greatest help from those that were once adversaries. Sycophants advance very little that is worthwhile.[/QUOTE]

You should contact the suckingly sychophantic supplicants that surround Hawking. I did not come to you people for "help". Philosophy etc is the art of discussing the stupidity of somebody else.

No room for discussion here, just facts.. For Parsons ... all these engine cycles are powered by LOSSES

All losses are any demand for perpetual motion. All the cycles are TEMPERATURE INDEPENDENT.

[Epsilon=One]

Don't drive those away that may be able to help. Quite often you'll find your greatest help from those that were once adversaries. Sycophants advance very little that is worthwhile.You should contact the suckingly sychophantic supplicants that surround Hawking.I certainly am not enamored of Hawking's black holes; nor, those that support such illogical theories; however, why should I contact these people?

I did not come to you people for "help".Well, you certainly are in need of some help. First, your attitude could use a bit of an uplift. Second, you need much help with your theory if it is to be as you purport at http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk: "Quantum Theory of Everything and a Natural Selection Mechanism." The theory is far from fundamental. I raised issues in Post #6 that as yet are unanswered.

There is only ONE law of physics. It goes something like this: The cause and effect of every event in the Universe is due to the vector switching of resonant Centrifugal forces between radial Energy and a tangential Power torque.I agree with the concept; however, this law can be said much more simply; and, certainly it is not fundamental nor close to being such; as, “vector switching” must explain: Why vectors?; and, Why switching? The term “resonant Centrifugal forces” must explain: Why resonance?; and, the etiology of: Why Centrifugal is a force? What is the explanation for: “radial Energy and a tangential Power torque”? How can such terms be thrown about without defining the dimensions and mathematics that supports the concepts?

Philosophy etc is the art of discussing the stupidity of somebody else.You have a strange and very unique understanding of Philosophy. I understand Philosophy as a discipline superior to the physics that you discuss; and, I note that much of your theory incorporates a philosophy of yours. Where would you and your theories be if it were not for philosophical logic?

No room for discussion here, just facts.I would think that just determining what is a "fact" would require some discussion; not only "here" but most anyplace else. That everyone else may be wrong, certainly, doesn't make your theories right. It does indicate that alternative concepts are required; and, you have accomplished as much . . . and much of your accomplishments have depended on the wisdom of others.

All losses are any demand for perpetual motion. All the cycles are TEMPERATURE INDEPENDENT.How can "All losses" that you allude to be equated with unlimited perpertual motion? Such would seem to indicate a singularity that exists.

How is anything truly "TEMPERATURE INDEPENDENT"?

[Janus20]

Vector switching between energy-power is the fundamental mathematical treatment for RESONANCE. Resonance is TEMPERATURE independent. It is the CAUSE and HEAT the effect.

[Epsilon=One]

Vector switching between energy-power is the fundamental mathematical treatment for RESONANCE.I agree. Can you explain the fundamental concepts of how "fundamental mathematical treatment" is applicable to, or provable of, something like "energy-power." That is: What is the etiology of "mathematics" such that it is reconcilable to the etiology of "energy-power." Do you believe that there is a common source? If you are striving for a "Theory of Everything," as you purport, these questions are not insignificant.

Resonance is TEMPERATURE independent. It is the CAUSE and HEAT the effect.Here I cannot agree . . . with either statement.

Where there is motion there is "HEAT." Without motion there is no resonance.

The first principle/dimension/concept/common denominator of existence is motion that I equate to "HEAT"; however, even if "HEAT" should be defined as the effect of motion; it is still more fundamental than resonance; and thus, would hardly seem to be fundamentally defined as an effect of resonance. More likely, there is a good argument that it would be the other way around. Motion (Heat) to Harmony (Heat) to Resonance (Heat).

I asked nearly a dozen questions; many of which seem of more interest than whether Resonance is "TEMPERATURE independent," which is a bit like the "chicken and egg" paradox.

I do like your approach of a question at a time.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.

[Janus20]

How about this one then. I have tried to shown how the relative and absolute velocities of the steel nozzles and water "lead and Lag" to provide self driving resonance. It is a duplication of all the mechanisms at www.unifiedtheory.org.uk

[Epsilon=One]

How about this one then. I have tried to shown how the relative and absolute velocities of the steel nozzles and water "lead and Lag" to provide self driving resonance. It is a duplication of all the mechanisms at www.unifiedtheory.org.ukYou arrive at many interesting conclusions; however none of them are supported by anything that even approaches fundamental manifestations.

You seem to have a "gut" reaction that much, in physics and basic engineering principles, is flawed within a system that is rife with corrupt purpose. I can agree with your premise; but, not with your arguement.

There are far too many fundamentally undefined terms that are dependent upon each other in your argument to make any logical sense of anything.

For instance, you state, "Every single natural event in the Universe is drive by a Power Torque of RESONANTLY VECTORING FREE LUNCH CENTRIFUGAL FORCE." This may be so; however, you fail to explain, any single term that you are using, anywhere that I can find, with fundamental concepts and their evolution. Where does your "RESONANTLY VECTORING" come from?; that is, how do you define the orthogonality of the vectors; or the "time" that they must be dependent upon?

More interestingly, you keep referring to "centrifugal force" that is not a recognizable force, in accordance, with the standard models of physics. I happen to also disagree with the standard models and consider "centrifugal force" as a component of Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI); however, I cannot find any explanation as to why you have arrived at such a conclusion.

Much of your work seems to be dependent upon many unsubstantiated or vague terms. Let's, first, begin with "centrifugal force"; how do you propose that it is a force?

Your title, "Quantum Theory of Everything" appears to be outrageous without an understanding of the geometry of emergent "dark" energy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DE) or "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM); or, why mathematics is provable; also, I find little rationalization from your "Quantum Theory of Everything" that explains Cosmic motions or the internal geometry of radiant energy.

[Janus20]

Physics is an ocean full of fishes, some are conservative other are progressist, but it seems overexaggerated to assume a general mendacity.

For example, your statements about Newton and Einstien are impressive, but not deeply explained.

What do you fear, a worldwide conspiracy?
A diffuse intellectual disonesty?

What scientists currently believe is that there is not a perfect model, but a competition between different mathematical models to better fit reality.

According to several evidencies Einstein provided a theory better than Newton, but he will be probably be overcome by other scientists in a neverending race towards the best model.

So what do you exactly mean with your statements?
Can you explain it better and let me suggest in a more polite manner?
If they are consistent be sure someone will take them in consideration.

A little late but ...the power torque drive of the earth sun dynamics is truly massive and equal to MV^2. It must operate at a frequency and periodic time of 24 hours per day ( minus 1 second every 3000 years about).

The drive value is equal to all the frictional demands of the iron core, magma, mantle, ocean currents and the finest of all the fine tuning .... the atmospheric weather.

Now I will very politely submit that .... GLOBAL WARMING REDUCES THE VISCOSITY AND BRAKE DRAG OF THE ATMOSPHERE. The solar system will not tolerate interference with its periodic time.

IT KICKS BACK WITH ... HURRICANES, TYPHOONS, TSUNAMI, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AND WILDLY ERRATIC FLOOD AND DROUGHT.

I showed this cycle in the Engineering forum as a Quantum water turbine. Other identical engine cycles are at www.unifiedtheory.co.uk/ and all have a beginning, middle and end of plain, uncomplicated arithmetic. Physics theory is a collection of Ismatics which have no logical beginning, middle or end.

My physics lecturer saw me as nothing more than a parrot that had to be taught "what to speak of".

QED ?????

[Epsilon=One]

.... GLOBAL WARMING REDUCES THE VISCOSITY AND BRAKE DRAG OF THE ATMOSPHERE. The solar system will not tolerate interference with its periodic time.

IT KICKS BACK WITH ... HURRICANES, TYPHOONS, TSUNAMI, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AND WILDLY ERRATIC FLOOD AND DROUGHT.What is the probability that there is a critical point at which moment the atmosphere will be rapidly stripped from the Earth?

[Janus20]

What is the probability that there is a critical point at which moment the atmosphere will be rapidly stripped from the Earth?

I don't believe this could ever happen. Where would it go ? Very likely another ice age would occur.

Maybe the last one was caused by humongously farting dinosaurs; on their diet of beans and leaves. 90% plus were vegetarian gobblers and our tiny cows today, do more than cars, ships and planes.

[Epsilon=One]

I don't believe this could ever happen. Where would it go ? Very likely another ice age would occur.There will be no ice age without an atmosphere. Atmospheres have "disappeared" from other planets. Why not Earth? Certainly, such will eventually be the situation. As I understand it, the question is only: When?

[Janus20]

There will be no ice age without an atmosphere. Atmospheres have "disappeared" from other planets. Why not Earth? Certainly, such will eventually be the situation. As I understand it, the question is only: When?

This is way beyond speculation by me. You think of Mars as an example ?

I would have to start guessing and that is anathema to a realistic engineer.
Maybe the answers you look for here are guessable but only by a real genius
and where will one ever find one of those ?

[Epsilon=One]

This is way beyond speculation by me. You think of Mars as an example ?And Venus, etc.

I would have to start guessing and that is anathema to a realistic engineer.

Maybe the answers you look for here are guessable but only by a real genius and where will one ever find one of those ?Most any astrophysicist should understand the problem. Again, the question is more when, rather than if.

[Janus20]

And Venus, etc.

Most any astrophysicist should understand the problem. Again, the question is more when, rather than if.

Spam filter is blocking reply

[Epsilon=One]

Spam filter is blocking replyE-mail the reply to me and I will post it.

[ste]

The sp4m filter doesn't like to be circu mvented, neither does it like ma ss. It also seems to have an issue with all things congen eric.

[Epsilon=One]

The sp4m filter doesn't like to be circu mvented, neither does it like ma ss. It also seems to have an issue with all things congen eric.I agree with your title, "More harm than good.."

Even with the spam filter there are near 10 spam and phishing post a day that must be deleted.

The spammers and phishers are better at evading the filter than the members.

[Janus20]

E-mail the reply to me and I will post it.

It is vital to distinguish between logical astrophysics and NASA propaganda to increase Congressional funding. IE... ancient life and a canal system on Mars. This is Star Trekking literature.