Relative

roulette is - equity , you can never win in the long run, poker would be + equity, in the long term the skill etc prevails. Online takes a +Ev game and makes it -EV. RNG is a random number generator. Poker over time has an even distribution, online poker has an uneven distribution making it an advantage if they get good timing of the decks. An unfair process. A 52 card deck , using one deck and through distribution properties, you will receive aces etc, however online is random times two. It is an unfair process that can not work.

OK I have started another thread. Online poker is hugely flawed, and has nothing to do with the RNG. The flaw is in process. The process - A multitude of 52 card decks are put into a shuffle server, so basically millions of decks put into a box and shuffled in their individual deck. The decks are then put into a que system. So although random, there is a set sequence set of how many cards is needed for which ever table needs a deck and amount of players at that table. Every single hand on all tables, a new deck is issued every go. And the first deck in the que goes to which ever table finishes first. So a new deck every hand to be clear. So I will now talk some basic maths. And base it on a 9 seater game of 5 tables containing nine players each table. Deck 1 - 18 card sequence that is set goes to table 1. Deck 2 - 18 card sequence that is set and goes to table 2. and so on for 5 tables, 2 cards each. Ok so far? Table 3 seat 3 the player is dealt pocket pair aces. and table 3 finishes its hand first, so gets deck 6 out of the que. Table 1, seat 3 hand 2, was meant by luck to be dealt aces. which was deck 6. Table 3 player one gets aces two hands in a row by timing of the decks. This is an unfair process of distribution, you can not rely on statistics and distribution probabilities, It is a game of timing, roulette principles and -EV 111111111011111111 111111111111111111 111111111111111111 111111111111111111 111101111011111111 111111111011111111 111111111011111111 111101111111101111 111111111111111111 111111111011111111 111111111111101111 011111110111111101 011111111011111101 0 represents the ace, can you understand this one this time?

Yes I do understand that, and I did have cause for reason, especially when I considered the measurement of time. And knowing distance etc, is based on time. I am aware that I may have some misconceptions......

I have knuckled down at times , but every time I come across something that is not logically correct, or has an alternative that also works, am I suppose to ignore that, and allow myself to learn something that I deem to be wrong or misunderstood? I know your definition of viscosity, honey and water, but I also know that weather systems have different energy levels and density, gases, a laser through smoke, etc. and ok, i will start another thread and simply show you that online poker is flawed in a big way, i will do that later though , and hopefully you can give what i have found a name.

Because it has no name, it has no maths, it has some obvious logic, I do not know what to call it , I can only explain it in simple explanation to understand, I have had people agree with me, but no one wants to do anything about it. Because what I am thinking about is not in current science, so can you understand from my view how hard that is to convey across?

Well established, my point, you are taught to believe and not question some areas. You take time measurement for granted to be true for example. You are so far of track with that one, and the obvious speaks for itself. Viscosity , another word for density in my eyes,

Yes but the science behind the problem, in discovering the problem, writes a whole new chapter in variance, something that has no meaning yet or words for it. It would need some maths that hard, I wish Einstein was about.

I can see your point, and yes there may be other words that explain my ideas better, but when I see the word and explanation that sounds like what I am thinking, then surely that is the word to use? and it will take me a while to read through the links thx, i will answer your question when I have read them and understand them.

Do you know through science i can prove online poker to have a huge flaw in the process, but again no one was interested. So science where have the balls gone to take on the big cats? thank you for the information. The thing was Einstein would of had a creative vision and actually created it in his head. Still the idea comes first, he did not make some maths out of the blue and the maths made lasers. And if I am so bad at science, why can no one challenge my time, my time destroying science....and all that you know.

Hey?, the idea is simple, send an energy beam that is different to the surrounding energy, hence a laser, you do it with tv signals, radio waves, that is how they work, a different energy to the surrounding energy level. Nothing complicated about it. Yes but einsteins maths were made to fit also, all maths from the beginning was made to fit, so of cause it would fit. and all calculations , well most are based on time which is incorrect. This thread will get locked before any one has challenged my time maths.

"if I don't understand it, it must be wrong" argument of why science is wrong. '' But i do understand, I think I have had lots of discussions with scientists, including a huge thread with mass views. The internet is full of current knowledge. The forums provide discussion. yes a laser, and so the idea came first, not the maths etc. Science relies on time, time is not correct. Ageing of the planet etc, all incorrect. Does any one want to argue my maths?

About 3 years of science forums. Hours of wiki and links. and my blog says it all, how it is, with no illusions of the universe, basic physics,

Yes but I have got to avoid a viscosity conversation. and e=mc2 works for what exactly? My formula gave meaning to real energy, energy that has no equal. e=mc2 is 1 dimensional thought

Dont think my time thread was ever closed, think science had no answer, you can see the full workings out on the wordpress blog, there is a link in this thread in the opening posts. And this is all relative to this thread, my argument would be again I give proof, and it was ignored by science, you ask for proof , i give the proof, but it was ignored. So what can science say to that apart from they are ignorant? No strange, all my ideas came from reading all the available knowledge, something was not quite right, so I thought about it.

1 second is equal to 0.288 mile, true, 100% maths correct. So to say Im 100% correct on that is not difficult. yet no one was interested .....

So can you tell me where my maths is at fault with time? if you can not that must make it true.

My maths was correct, you can not tell me I am wrong because I was correct, my time theory over ruled the entire science history, I am 100% logically correct, I do not do error in thought.

So you must agree that talking about an idea, even without a model , is what happens before any maths is involved? I accuse science of ignorance, and you agreed that you base your science on the maths, maths is not a result, maths is just a table of contents made to fit. You can not just make a maths formula up and it would work on something, that is backwards. Dirac would of used someones else work, and done some comparison maths and made it fit. From maths that was already made to fit, and by mentioning viscosity I was showing you the context in which you did not understand. An example of how crazy science has become. I tried maths once, give science a formula that over rules E=mc2 , with the process , e= mc2 is meaningless. So I give you maths and you say Im wrong, so hows that work when My maths worked? including 1 second is equal to 0.288 mile , so please tell me why my maths i made to fit is wrong?

Thank you , and I have already on one forum proved about the maths been made to fit, I made some maths fit of my own and come up with the correct answers. You mention, Dirac and anti matter, the point been from my perspective the antimatter came first, not the maths. The idea and the discovery, and I am been honest when I say I have looked and learnt lots of current science, and I can honestly see with my lines of thought a complete paradox to science that also works.

example a lazer, the viscosity of the lazer is greater than the viscosity of the surrounding environment, like a tap running , the velocity of flow having affect. So can you see my definition of viscosity now? Would the way forward and should be added to critical and lateral thinking wiki citations, that a definition should be explained firstly to show the context?

''Viscosity is due to the friction between neighboring particles in a fluid that are moving at different velocities.'' Hmmm! see, energy could be deemed the same, look at the ionization process in the upper layers of the atmosphere, and no mods im not trying to start the thread again, this is an example to show a point from WIKI. Science took it too far and give different names to the same process. Water is the medium, atmosphere is the medium, Emr is the medium. I miss where there is a difference, when friction is mentioned, and involved in a medium that maintains a constant state. The ionization layer is a friction layer between two mediums. So critical thinking easily shows us that the way forward is on those lines of thoughts, and not models or maths, what happened to good old fashioned common sense? Ok JOhn I understand that, but how to express something with out a name, I can only use comparison of words and process comparisons. ''Viscosity is due to the friction between neighboring particles in a medium or of energy that are moving at different velocities.'' +added - in its own cluster or group formation. I fixed the sentence for you.........it should say that. example weather systems.

Two interesting posts, and I will have to argue that both are wrong. Critical thinking comes first. My supportive evidence would be Faraday. Without Maxwell and 15 years later, Faradays work would of been pointless. You will actually find if you researched it that maths is made to fit and the predictions are according to the maths, that is made to fit, so of cause it will fit. The maths comes after, always has and always will to give a numerical meaning. This is why science is stuck and had no breakthroughs in years because you are looking at the maths all the time, models, and sometimes the obvious does not need a model. Ideas are meant to be discussed, science does not discuss ideas but only quotes back text book and current thought. None of you ever discussed my ideas , but quoted back text book which I can google, I have your knowledge at my finger tips. I do not need current thought, to have a thought and discuss that thought. You all are so wrong, and that is not me been arrogant, the maths is made to fit, so actually the technicality is that the maths is meaningless and the critical thinking and lateral thinking, is the reason of questioning to follow in any physical process.

My evidence, the continued closed posts on most science forums. My debate, lateral thinking and critical thinking, apart of science, yet ignored by many. https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/we-see-through-the-transparent-state-part-5/ My next article will be about science and its stereo typical nature towards individuals who have freedom of thought. Using lateral and critical thinking to overview science, and the ability to argue, with logic that fits. yes or no that lateral and critical thinking is a part of science? the part that comes before any maths?

Strange you should mention a multi car pile up in slow motion, a bit like a photons journey from a red dwarf. The evidence , you already have it, it is your science that lead me to my conclusion and ideas. Seriously , where is the open minds. A Universe of 0, negative and dark, it is always dark, light is a creation by physical process, a paradox been that dark must of had energy to create stars before the stars that give energy were made. Red is the longer of the waves, to make it red it takes less energy than to make indigo, red is stretched, it is weaker. elasticity..... It is not easy to convey an idea you know, especially when science talks science and i talk street. Evidence, the Doppler effect, although back then they did not have a full understanding unlike now. The shift is caused by velocity direction shift of EMR pressure, the faster an object moves away, from the EMR source, the more the red shifts , the EMR becomes a straighter wave. i.e red shift, it is so obvious this is what happens. You see a viscosity change of the energy, of emr, by direction and velocity,

you know science has it wrong...... ''...BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit, the energy never completely dies, and can easily be recharged by physical momentum, or ionization etc.'' .BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit,- <IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU GO IN OUR VISUAL UNIVERSE, WE HAVE LIGHT , EMR, FROM WHAT EVER THE POSITION OF THE OBSERVER THEY SEE MATTER THROUGH A TRANSPARENT STATE, THE OBSERVER IS ALSO IN THE SOUP OF EMR, BEEN LITERALLY CONNECTED TO THE STARS BY EMR. EMR IS A CONDUIT, .... THAT IS WHY YOUR SAT NAVS WORK ETC, YOU SEND A DIFFERENT VISCOSITY OF ENERGY THROUGH THE CONDUIT OF EMR.