Proof of One

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

Nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

Please advise as where to send photocopies. The basics of Pulsoid Theory, for those too lazy to read or study very much, are, probably, most succinctly found in "The Mystique of the Ellipse" for those that are not interested enough to read a few successive Threads; or, for those who are unable to, or incapable of, understand logic. Of interest might be the Overview and Summary for those accustomed to reading technical journals. If you could count you would find 80, or so, Threads. I only started a bit over a month ago and am averaging about eight, or more, posts a day (many are starts of Threads) in all forums. You can find an Index/Table of Contents at: http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TOC. This site is kept current on an hourly basis. There would be many more substantive posts, if I were not bothered with baseless, nonsensical, infantile, bantering tripe. (BN,I,BT)

Yet, quite apparently, not one that you can recall.

Obviously, I am curious as to whether you can find a single one; then, I am curious as to which one you select and your reasoning for its selection. From a practical approach, I cannot take the time to refute a negative some 100, or so, times. And, lastly, I don’t believe there is one that you can find. You have made my point; as many learned persons should agree. Pick one. I should be able to define it non-circularly. Me thinks, thou protests too much . . . Tell that one to a lexicographer.

Without further checking, I will accept your statements. I try very hard to not so do; I doubt very much that I made the statement as you reflect it. I am a professional. I have many accomplishments recognized by the physics community. I have no accomplishments that are formally recognized by said community. Not certain as to where the fault may lie. You will probably be missed by some. There is plenty of physics that I would like to discuss; you may pick any topic; and, I will see what I can do with it. You have made a general accusation, which is impossible to reply to; if you could be specific concerning the questions that I have refused to answer, everyone would be able to understand your position; and, just possibly, I might be able to reply.

Apparently, you understand little of what the term speed of gravity means. As far as the speed of light, particularly, in the Congeneric Realm of Dissipation, I have not said that it propagates at the speed of Infinity; I have said that its speed like Cosmic Inertia is not constant. The internal speed of oscillation that is responsible for the ellipsoidal structure of a light wave is near the speed of Infinity. Either pay attention when you read; or, cite examples when you state your opinion as to what I contend. Your endless, non-informed carping must be irritating to many that would like to get on with the substance of this Thread. I note that it is the youngest of members which appear to understand the least.

In that case you should have no difficulty locating a single one so that I can attempt to correct it. My offer is certainly better than other physicists that have been unable to do such with the conventional four dimensions. Perhaps you should direct your wrath towards the Pomo elite physicists, as well. At least I will gladly make the attempt at rectifying your perceived confusion. Just one word please, I must have 100 or more neologisms and acronyms from which to pick. Otherwise, I must assume that your plaint is without merit; or possibly, you don't understand the term "Circular Definition," which I provided you earlier . . . admitedly, without citing the Dictionary that I used. Should you be able to cite any Dictionary that has a substantially different definition, I will reconsider your point as significant.

No. But, I am replying to a direct question. Something that I find quite lacking in the posts from several of the younger members.

If you can find an instance of something that is circular, I will immediatly fix it. Your assertions, that are never supported, are becoming lame. Can you find no mistake in logic or math? I have posted at least 60 original ideas. There must be one that you can find some perceived fault with?

I'll give you a few. All answers can be found at http://www.PulsoidTheory.com. What is the Elliptical Constant (EC)? How is the EC related to the Proof of One?; How do they both relate to Number Theory?; and, Why does Number Theory impact descriptive physics?

Obviously, you still can't read; continue to post tripe; and neglect every direct question I ask. Some performance, indeed.

Thanks. I had hoped you would like it. Apparently, you found nothing wrong with the equations. I appreciate that you could find no logical or mathematical mistakes. Some think I am dense; and, I suppose, at times, we all enjoy a little attention. You surely are a fine example to broach the subject of attention requirement.

Your information is interesting. No matter how many times I view a post or move around a Thread, page, or topic. Or, close, refresh or reopen my browser, the view count never changes. It appears to me that it is linked to an IP address and does not tabulate multiple views. I am curious. Maybe the staff can explain the system? Try as I might, I have never been able to add a view. You seem to know something that I don't understand too well.

The below link is to a post that has many "equations," as do many other posts that I have continually given you. Are you unable to read; or otherwise deficient? "The Mystique of the Ellipse."

Obviously, you have no ability when it comes to reading or understanding mathematics. If there is a single formula or bit of logic that you do not understand at Pulsoid Theory, so state. Otherwise you are wasting my time; and even worse, all of the time of outside viewers that are not the least interested in your infantile posts. This Thread is rocketing to the top of the first page of Threads when sorted by Viewers. Don't embarrass yourself more than you have already. Tripe is uncalled for; find the meat!!!

Then, I am sure that you are aware of Cosmic Vision 2015-2026, which proposals are all pretty much on the theme of Pulsoid Theory. You might also check: SpaceRef.com I might add that Pulsoid Theory nicely explains/predicts Quasar formation and Gamma-ray bursts. Also, Caltech's efforts regarding gravity waves is approaching one billion dollars; Pulsoid Theory predicts that Caltech will not succeed. A European consortium is planning to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. Search this site for “Pioneer” to find the announcement. If the Pioneer Anomaly is a fact, it is a phenomenon that, currently, is only explicable with Pulsoid Theory. Of course, the photon effect will always be the best evidence/proof of Pulsoid Theory.

Yes, often. Either I, or my critics are wrong. However, as mathematics is not very subjective, it is undeniable that Pulsoid Theory is a Paradigm Shift in the field of Pure Mathematics. It would seem that if Pure Mathematics is the the true foundation of descriptive physics, then my work could possibly have some "scientific merit." The call is not mine to make with regards to physics.

I have. Is fifty plus years long enough. No regrets, yet. With a bit of luck, another twenty, or so, should be possible.

I don’t consciously belittle anyone for what they are. On occasion, when it seems warranted, I do question a persons training. My standards are IPSO. As to whether I “measure” is for others to judge. Obviously, your vote has been cast. (You, probably, decided to vote for G.W. Bush before the debates.) I would equate the “ego” to more like professional hubris. Hubris, wisely applied, is a right earned by long study; and, should be reserved for those who have introspective intelligence . . . and wit. It is quite difficult ......knowing that you're right ............. . . when no one else agrees. You are not alone; your opinion is shared by many. You may be on to something. Though, I’ll wager that Euclid would have wanted to know about the Elliptical Constant. If I have, that is a most grievous error; and, you have every right to so expose. I know of nothing. If I am mistaken, someone will so advise. Many are paying attention. I’ve been banned, thrown out, threatened with physical harm, all many times; but always by the acolytes . . . usually grad students and post docs. I'm sure you would not make me feel welcome. I would judge the “great minds” enjoyed my thoughts as much as I enjoyed their thoughts. I have mounds of correspondence to that effect; never once requesting to be “off record.” Well, maybe, J. A. Wheeler, alone, has written a bit that some might find disparaging; I didn’t; I was flattered.

I have found most learned persons understand my precise vocabulary; those that don't usually own a dictionary and use it. It's been many years since I have raised young children and have had to explain the meanings of simple everyday words that are used by the learned. In 1952 through 1954 I spent much time researching and thinking about the etiology of seminal motion. Serendipitously, the phenomenon occurred to me. Nothing has been the same since. And, no one has demonstrated otherwise. To this day, no one else has ever considered the internal, geometric structure of a light wave; or the reason for that structure's particular shape. Yet, I have written about it on the internet for over 15 years. Currently, 100s of millions are being spent to verify observations predicted by Pulsoid Theory over 50 years ago.

Doesn't seem to help when the system double posts Thanks for all your assistance. You have been the perfect foil that is helping to drive the Viewers to record levels in a matter of hours. Are you aware that your posts may be cached on Google for ontold years, where they will always be available to those that may know your pseudonym? My concern is that you are wasting every good viewers time with your drivel.