Pinch Paxton

No but that's the only thing I can predict that hasn't already been predicted. I would predict that light would interfere with itself due to the wave, but I can't because it's already been shown to be true. I would predict that messages can be sent instantly from one particle to another, but I can't because that has already been shown to be true. I could predict that a photon could hit two different places at the same time, but I can't because that has already been shown to be true. The only thing that hasn't been calculated so far based on my theory is the anti-gravity between large objects. So I use that as my main argument. The other things back me up, but are not predictable because they are already known. I even argue against my theory if I find something that doesn't work with it. Pincho.

Well, lets say that in the past, all the mathematical formulas that you call proof, are wrong. So what does that mean about science? It means that you have to proove something with formulas that are wrong. The speed of light I am suggesting is wrong for a start, so I can't use that. Relativity is wrong, so I can't use that. Magnetism is wrong so I can't use that. Evolution is wrong but my theory is not based on evolution. What I am saying really is that I would need to use every formular based on my own starting formula which corrects the speed of light. But my formula would be based on light interferance, and this interferance has been explained in an odd way already, so I have to change peoples minds about that. Then I have to change peoples minds about Spooky science, because my theory suggests that the gravity wave can travel faster than light, and can reach distant objects instantly. It's a catch 22 situation. However, if scientists all start to notice anti gravity, then they surely are allowed to re-write some of the theories. In other words, observation is more important than maths at this point. Maths comes later. I am just the theorist, not the mathematician. I am just as important as the mathematician, but you are not treating me with any dignity. Pincho.

Heh, I just found this in that old post. Is this true? Because if it is then I am almost certainly right. "Scientists have detected a mysterious gravitational-like force which is pulling on distant spacecraft. They became aware of the force after analyzing the trajectories of four deep-space probes. "It is almost as if the probes are not behaving according to the known law of gravity," said Dr John Anderson, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the scientist heading the study into this anomaly. "We've been working on this problem for several years, and we have accounted for everything we could think of." Pioneer 10, one of the probes being affected by the mystery force, was launched towards the outer planets in 1972. It is now far beyond Jupiter but still in radio contact with Earth. By studying the Doppler shift of the radio signals from the craft, scientists have been able to calculate, very precisely, how fast it is travelling. The puzzle is that Pioneer 10 is slowing more quickly than it should. At first, scientists speculated that the slowing might be due to the gravitational pull of some nearby, unseen object. However, when the trajectory of Pioneer 10's sister spacecraft, Pioneer 11, launched in 1973, was analyzed, it was found that it too was being subjected to the same mysterious pull. Since Pioneer 11 is on the opposite side of the Solar System from Pioneer 10, the effect cannot be the gravitational force of some unseen body. "Our analysis strongly suggests that it is difficult to understand how any of these mechanisms can explain the magnitude of the observed behaviour of the Pioneer anomaly," Anderson's team stated. The mystery deepened when it was revealed that the same unexplained force has been affecting on the Galileo spacecraft on its journey to Jupiter, and the Ulysses spaceprobe that is orbiting the Sun. Several scientists have noted that the strength of the effect seems to be related to two of the Universe's physical constants: the speed of light and the speed of the expansion of the Universe. If this were true it would suggest a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity. "

I can't prove my theory, it is based on observable after effects. Like the big bang theory is based on observable after effects. My theory does create anti-gravity between distances of empty space. If that is observed then I get a bit closer to being right. I did notice on NASA's site that they have to make unexplained midway corrections on the flight of their satellites to mars, that might be the anti-gravity that I am talking about, but still, if anyone is any good at maths they could work it out. Einstein was good at the proof part, and maybe not so good at the theory part, whereas I am good at the theory part, and useless at the mathematical stage. I would make a good partner for someone involved in science. But yeah I agree that there is no pull, only pushing involved.

It sounds like an advert for the film AI. Then the girls would be robots.

Yikes I just though of a double meaning... I like to Mass Debate!!! OOOOerrr! Must put that in my siggy! LOL! Pincho.

Wow here's a though! If it were ever possible to really store the inforamtion of somebody as a list of data, you could produce a data wave from photons, and send them light years away. There might even be other medium that could be used to send you back in time. You would be reproduced from molecules from the past, but your real molecules would remain in this time. Pincho.

They didn't destroy the other molecular version of him. The information is stored for each person as data. They sometimes use this information to cure an illness, because you have a stored version of you that was not ill at the time. Pincho.

I'm pretty sure that the explenation used in Star Trek is that a duplicate of you is assembled in another place, and the original version of you is destroyed. I think that this explenation is slightly different than your explenation. Maybe not.

Interesting!

I know but I'm not starting another mass debate.

Pity the pictures not 3D I could rotate it to the right angle. Oh well done! LOL!

Looks a lot like mariner 6 or 7.

Had a little play with the image. Looks like part of one of the landers now. Don't take much notice of this, i used my imagination. Pincho.

I put some of it.....I daren't even comment! lol!

If food takes 24 hours to digest, and you eat at around the same time every day then that will happen.

Big things ...Ligers! http://www.stripeymaney.com/ligers/ http://members.aol.com/jshartwell/hybrid-mammals.html http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/923817/detail.html

Yeah, I think it actually takes about 11 generations to get 100%, or 3 generations to get 90% crocodile. Zebras can also mate with donkeys, and you get a Zonkey. It's another natural mating.

The opposite halves of the gene pool. With Tigers, and Lions you get Ligers, and Tions. Tions have a mane! Or is it Tigons? Tygons and Ligers ...found that.

I say that mathematically, all species including ourselves, have an increasing probability of getting two matching gene mutations due to a slow increase in gene mutation over time. In other words, all genes in one species are slowly starting to match up. This sounds accurate, apart from including that there would be hybrid Tyranodiles, and hybrid Crocasaurus. Each with half gene pool of each making a totally fresh gene pool. When Crocosaurus, and tyranodiles mate you get todays crocodiles, smaller than the original versions of that day. Pincho.

Yeah I noticed that no gene mutation occurs through water, or has not been discovered, but I should really have said hormone transferance, because I was basing my theory on hormones passed through water from the female birth contreceptive. So maybe I lost my way a little bit during my explenation.

What I'm thinking is that if the number decreases then why do we all carry 5 mutant genes after such a long span of the human race? I am just hypothesising anyway. Skye are you taking 2.4 children into consideration? Also, how many eggs do crocodiles lay that reach breeding stage, and same with T-rex, and other dinosaurs.

It does get complicated. That's why I want to run it in my computer. I suppose that any gene can become mutated due to an aquired mutation. How many genes do we actually have? I need all the accurate figures. 5 mutant genes per person. 4000 possible illnesses. sometimes 25% passed on as carriers. sometimes 50% passed on as carriers from the father alone. (huntington Disease) and it's always the male that gets it. All this I have to get accurate.

Actually a quick think about it.... 5 faulty genes per human 25% passed on as carriers That's actually a gain in carriers! There are some 50% diseases as well, because of dominant disorders. 2 Children = 1 diseased on average. That's from just one parent. On top of that, you can aquire a mutation from none of the parents, but from your environment. You can also then pass this mutation on to your children!!! What do you think? http://www.dnapolicy.org/genetics/geneticsAndDisease.jhtml

Yeah I've been reading up on it. Each human at the moment carries 5 faulty genes. There are 4000 possible illnesses from faulty genes. If both parents are carriers then 25% children will be diseased, 50% will be carriers, 25% will be normal. If 1 parent is carrier the 25% children will be carrier. I shall put this into my computer, and watch what happens over generations. I also found out that Alligators have gone through changes with resulted sterilisation due to chemicals found in water from pesticides. Now I know that pesticides aren't the same as T-rex genes, but I am thinking now of T-rex hormones from urine etc, and also that perhaps T-rex received hormonal changes from crocs. Amphibians are very perceptible to changes in their water, frogs also require quite a pure type of water. Pincho.