Jump to content

andrewcellini

Senior Members
  • Posts

    496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by andrewcellini

  1. it's apparent that you are just practicing in imagination, which is great but science is about making testable predictions. so far your theory amounts to several strings of undefined concepts that you have made up and insisted upon talking about, and several points where you have no idea what you're talking about or perhaps what you're trying to say. it's good to have ideas, but they have to relate to what we actually observe and account for it. saying it does is a conjecture that requires showing how your theory compares to experiment and if it predicts new phenomena that we can observe and quantify. this can only be said so many times before it becomes redundant. edit: my mistake, you did make a prediction. your prediction that the universe is fractal was shown to be not the case at all scales.
  2. how does your "entropy" relate to thermodynamic entropy? or entropy in information theory?
  3. you are just making conjectures and further demonstrating you don't have that good of a grasp of what you're talking about. just saying "double slit experiment" doesn't say what that has to do with your "theory." what do you mean by entropy? you are again using words unconventionally. stop using these words and give me their definition, saying " I mean it literally" means nothing because you obviously don't know what they mean in a scientific context.
  4. do you have an actual model or just an acronym?
  5. how does this explain everything? or anything at all? for example this doesn't have the explanatory power to account for what is conventionally known as "awareness" or "particles" and certainly is more of a really bad analogy for what is actually concerned with in quantum mechanics and physics in general. you need to be clear on your vocabulary because, as i've pointed out before, you're using it in a wild unconventional way which makes this seem like a completely meaningless jumble.
  6. apocalyptic and miracle working rabbi's like Christianity's Jesus were apparently common around that time with some being written of in the talmud. jesus is probably an amalgam more than a real person. christianity survived just because it had luck and government on it's side, imagine what religions could've been in it's place; worship of honi the circledrawer perhaps? haha
  7. okay, emotions are energy, then what do you mean by energy? it's obvious you're using it in an unconventional sense.
  8. what do you mean by energy?
  9. i'm confused at how an equation can move at the speed of sound, unless it's written on something going said speed or contained within it. perhaps you're shouting the equation out loud?
  10. i don't believe that everything can be derived from that equation, no. it's quite meaningless but it has an easy solution. how did you come to this conclusion?
  11. your terms are ill defined so how am supposed to follow that derivation. if your terms mean what i think they mean then what you "derived" =/= lorentz factor gamma. and from your explanation above they mean something different than what i think they mean. please define them.
  12. this all seems completely arbitrary. how did you come to these equations and terms and what do they mean? how are you approaching the problem you are trying to solve? you really aren't explaining anything by restating equations and coming up with new ones.
  13. this is your conjecture. where is your evidence?
  14. aemillius i reject what you present as evidence on the grounds that your starting premises are false.
  15. starting from false premises leads to false conclusions is what i've learned today.
  16. what determines such forking? you call this an explanation but it's 3 sentences that are saying loosely what you mean by parallel universe.
  17. i don't understand what the obsession with disproving darwin is. it's as if you think scientists are still using his original formulation of the theory by natural selection to explain biodiversity, but what you forget is that there are more mechanisms known (genetic drift, the bottleneck effect, migration) which affect allele frequency (something darwin didn't know about at the time he formulated his theory). the genetic evidence (again something darwin didn't know about) alone concludes descent with modification. as stated above this addition of awareness to evolution makes no sense with observation.
  18. what do you want to discuss?
  19. what does that have to do with what you're talking about? do you see why expressing your ideas coherently is helpful yet?
  20. from what i understand i don't think that this is possible with gene therapy. what impact would this have on the organisms development? playing with this question in my head i don't see complete restructuring of the organism such that one could observe in their phenotype that they have become, genetically, the opposite sex occurring so i don't know if this would make much sense to do. genetics really isn't my strong point however.
  21. i don't know how you could come up with an estimated cost when you don't even know how to express and test your ideas. your above claim that concepts "supercede" the means to explain/express such concepts, that having all these ideas you can conceive of is more important than being able to allow others to see if such ideas even have physical significance or are valid, is pretty much the antithesis of science. you can come up with ill defined concepts all day but until you can communicate what you mean and show how it can be tested by other observers their validity cannot be assessed.
  22. that is a pretty bold claim that they don't work as they do seem to have a positive effect on some individuals, granted there are some side effects which can be considered disturbing (suicidal and homicidal tendencies). it's true that depression is not well understood and part of the problem comes from practice of viewing the brain as having an imbalance of neurotransmitters as a whole rather than in certain specific circuits. this is probably because all the individual synapses, until recently, haven't been mapped out for the average brain (perhaps the depressed brain in the future?) and the way a psychiatrist typically diagnoses depression before prescribing medications (ssri, ssnri, sometimes maoi) is grounded in the observation of the patients behavior during therapy, qualitative tests, etc.
  23. good job, you can take images out of the notebooks original context. this has been reduced to nothing more than logical fallacy. i don't know if you're delusional or trolling. you seem to forget that newton had several mathematical models which work under certain physical parameters to describe reality, something which you refuse to actually put the effort in to do. if you did put the effort to research papers and conceive of a way to demonstrate physically what you mean as well as make equations that can make predictions then you might find that science isn't about "i'm right" it's "i'm probably wrong, back to the drawing board."
  24. i wouldn't describe that as scribblings of a madman it's his personal research notebook that wasn't published. for one, you probably can't read german and/or his handwriting. another thing is he is actually (it seems) doing experiments, describing what he is talking about, then abstracting that into an equation and doing work with it that can be replicated. you're trying to equate yourself with people who did real work.
  25. not what i meant by define your terms. what i meant was it makes no sense to assume lambda is the cosmological constant in your equation because it has no real explanatory value of repulsiveness (as previously pointed out). i didn't know if you were following the conventional use or presenting another meaning for the symbol. either way it's hard to understand what you're trying to say in your model unless you can adequately explain it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.