jasondoege

No i said or find somewhere else. OR. OR. OR. i even pointed that out already Dont close the thread just leave it alone. you guys are spending a considerable amount of time ive begged you to stop doing. I wonder why??? Its funny because the gibberish you guys keep coming up with google cant find anything on the entire web that contains it. whys that?

Yes, kinetic energy is something a body possesses by being in motion. A body in motion that comes into contact with another body has something called force.

dont quote me and cut off the blatant points ive made about the same topic. You guys need to drop this now you have almost zero grey matter.

because everybody should know the only way weve been able to detect it is by its "gravitational" effect. Link me to one professional study that shows them firing empty space at things or shows its something theyve had to thrust through with things like voyager. It does not interact with matter in any other way than what i just showed you. this is kindergarden level stuff. what is a mechanical movement vector? is it something nanobots do lmao

lmao. Please guys just drop it im begging you

That dude even just linked me to gibberish that says dark matter has kinetic energy. do they need to walk for me to talk to them like youre already saying im doing???? Look guys seriously you have no desire to analyze and critique this hypothesis in any meaningful constructive way so just drop it please.

These dolphins have consistently shown me repeatedly they lack moderate to advanced logic skills and so have suffered brain damage in the critical thinking area of the brain from being a dolphin their whole life. Its clear to me Im going to have to search long and wide to find a special dolphin that hasnt been affected by this issue.

All you guys have done is possibly show that one conclusion i drew from my hypothesis is incorrect. If you say outright that you know 100% for sure that initial matter could not have been created this way and point out details that show why not that dont just include because cmbr requires more than that, then i will believe you and remove that conclusion. But if you cannot see the merit or test ability of the original hypothesis i need to look elsewhere because i am not getting the positive interaction i was looking for that would even include showing the crux of my theory has to be false. I guess you cant see your extremely negative predilections towards this just based on my position as an outsider which i pointed out Einstein even was and had to deal with this same crap.

i guess youre saying our universe is a donut and has a center then. and even though this absurd non-fact has no bearing on the crux of my hypothesis lets go ahead and say it invalidates it. Ive been at home the whole time. And guess what i said id find someone else to do it OR go somewhere else. God you people are so dumb you cant even understand or speak basic english

Dude just drop it. Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

I didnt get insulted when you tried to explain things thats part of the reason im here and its something ive been begging you guys to do. I got insulted when you keep referring to my level of accomplishments in the field as proof that what i had to offer was invalid. Thanks for giving me another word for something i refer to and even answered in my hypothesis. Im using this forum to see if i understand astrophysics well enough for my hypothesis to be valid or to drop it if someone shows me i dont and its not. You Simply saying i dont therefore it isnt isnt adding any value to the conversation. If you do not have anything specific youd wish to add then just go on about your business elsewhere. You seem to have an odd desire to have me believe youve discredited my hypothesis thats not based on anything specific that i can an only assume is because of ulterior motives regarding it which im just going to add as another feather in my cap. i feel for you bro. Its apparent dealing with someone like me is frustrating for you and a shot to your ego about matters on this subject but you need to get over it. You need to fix how you approach information sharing and debate about whats shared because youre slapping science and open discourse in the face with that. And guess what Einstien was not a physics expert when he revolutionized our understanding of it. He was a mathematician who people regularly tried to discredit that we know we were all very lucky to have an expert even consider and test his ideas.

Maybe you pointed out some detail that invalidates that conclusion i drew from it, id have to look into it. But like i said in the post you just replied to it does not invalidate my hypothesis. And once again you insult my knowledge of physics in order to discredit any idea have have regarding it. Its like some weird itch specialists have because they cant accept the fact that an outsider can actually have a positive effect on their field. Im gonna rest for now. Im assuming by your comments that you think a small section and not the crux of my hypothesis is false and therefore the whole thing is and that you know how smart i am because you just happen to be that smart and from my level of intelligence youve gleaned that somehow im so dumb that i cant even guess things correctly so its not worth talking to me about my ideas so please stop doing so.

The likelyhood is random and symmetrical based on what ive already presented you. I have no idea what those things are, like i said i am completely removed from the scientific community and its why im on this forum hoping to talk to people like you that arent. Instead of pointing them out feel free to point out details of them that invalidate parts of my theory including the crux of it. Please say in more detail what that impossibility im describing is. And please realize this applies to just one conclusion of my hypothesis and does not invalidate it if its false.

No take your time and think about it. If matter/anti-matter pairs were produced in random directions and separated by spatial expansion you would have randomly defined areas with only matter or anti-matter present in them after the dominant member annihilated its opposite due to their attraction to one another and close proximity. Random means random and that directly correlates to the areas of space dominated by one or the other except by saying that the produced result would be symmetrical and if somehow this big bang descriptive detail of my hypothesis is wrong it does not invalidate my idea. its only a conclusion from it not the crux of it.

I explain that in my hypothesis. Randomly dominant matter and anti matter areas of the universe were created by infinite or extremely high spatial expansion that was present due to the initial absence of matter. as far as im aware quantum foam is randomly directed so it would produce this result Thank you for at least trying at this point