NavajoEverclear Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 theory #187 : Michael F.D. is crazy. Maybe it's his parents fault. ©2003-2500 © Everclear Ideas Enterprises Corp.
Michael F. D. Posted June 13, 2003 Author Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri If you can't explain all observed phenomenon (within the accuracy of the experiment), and make predictions, then you are not presenting a scientific theory. ps. GR and QM have NOTHING which support your 'theory' (in fact, quite the opposite) Superstring theory hasn't even decided which number of dimensions it likes best, let alone been completed And I have no idea what 'G-D' is, apart from 'General Discussions' [edit] And as to full explanation of observed phenomenon, I obviously mean WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE THEORY. Certainly, you are a clever person, MrL_JaKiri. You have noted the direct opposition of my points to the existing theoryes. But theories are only attempt of the explanation of the available observations and repeatedly confirmed experimental data. I don't say that my points are corresponds to the existing theory. I am saying that my points does not disagree whole practical experience of a mankind. This is a different notions. One phenomena can be described by straight opposite theoryes. Herewith each of them can be executed in accordance with all existing requirements and may contain much pages of "mathematician". Naturally, straight opposite theories can't be considered as corresponding to reality. One of them can only. Which one? p.s. G-Dimensional Theory: a "new relativity" by Steve Young.
JaKiri Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 Well, that was my point about differing predictions; you have to make some predictions which are different from those which the accepted model makes, in order to distinguish them. Otherwise, it's just a case of unnecessarily multiplying entities, and so Occam's Razor precludes it.
Michael F. D. Posted June 13, 2003 Author Posted June 13, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear theory #187 : Michael F.D. is crazy. Maybe it's his parents fault. ©2003-2500 © Everclear Ideas Enterprises Corp. The insults on the part of such people as you, NavajoEverclear, I consider as compliment.
NavajoEverclear Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 I actually do regret saying that. But right back at you anyway. BTW its not like I hate you, who knows maybe we could be friends in real life---- or maybe not
NavajoEverclear Posted June 13, 2003 Posted June 13, 2003 Sorry, just having a little fun. I'm just kidding mostly--- I wouldn't ruin a possible friendship for the dumb reason that he talks like a too wordy science book and I think his theories are BS, thats what my friends think about me, and they still think i'm an ok guy most of the time.
matthew Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 Irrelevant: You should've seen Faf ramble on and on about how Quixotica was the best scrambler ever, and everything in the world was inferior. I also find it funny his parents wouldn't give him money for a new computer because they said it wasn't important, and he got a new tennis racket(raquet) instead. Oh, and when he glined me for out-witting him over something rediculous. Memories... Anyways, you should give Michael a bit of credit for trying to propose a theory in a second or third, maybe even fourth language. I know its rather hard to comprehend the complexities of speaking a second language, as most Americans are intelligent enough to know nothing of their own. Its not so much of his text-book style of speaking Everclear... its just that you're used to materials that are meant to relate an idea to the equivalent of an inebriated cretin with down-syndrome(myself). While i'm at it, you should learn to use words in the proper context before you ostentate your superior english skills to a foreigner, as to not give those of a differing vernacular a migraine(which is almost EVERYONE else). :lame:
NavajoEverclear Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 Hmmm i sort of feel like saying sorry, but I don't believe thats the appropriate response as it wouldn't seem genuine. So i will say: ---------------------------------- <ingrained in those dashes are my thoughts, so switch on the telepathy machine and read my mind to save me the trouble of finding words to translate myself. Ok maybe the vernacular thing wasn't a good point (I cant even entirely remember exactly what I said) but I still think he has too many numbers. I (and most people) like things more conceptual, it is more understandable. There is nothing wrong with not incrypting science into textbook language. Better yet tell it in a parable. Parables is the answer!
NavajoEverclear Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 The silly simariton electron collided with the blind leperous photon thus creating a bernoulian implosion sending them to seperate time points. Now let us think---- in which direction are they flowing through time?
NavajoEverclear Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 despite my evident lack of educated intelligence I thought that was rather funny
Sayonara Posted June 15, 2003 Posted June 15, 2003 I think you could make better use of the [Edit] button, which is located next to the time and date stamp for your posts if you are using the default layout scheme (Orbitz), or under the location and postcount if you are using the Plezik layout scheme. That way you can avoid making strings of short posts, and the mods won't want to delete half of them
NavajoEverclear Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 I know where it is, I didn't think it was that important, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Dude you really did delete half my posts--- I had 101 last night--- that means you deleted 34 posts------ and what about fafalones last one on this thread? He's a mod himself, why am I targeted?
fafalone Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 We (me and some mods) correctly assumed you were posting for the sake of post counts rather than content, i.e. a new post for every sentence and very carefully watching your post count. None of your posts were deleted, I just changed how many posts were reported, if you do a search for all posts by your name, all 100+ posts will be shown. ..and my posts aren't targetted because i don't have 3+ consecutive replies in a thread.. plus i'm an admin.
Radical Edward Posted June 16, 2003 Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Is it don't care for you , alive you or dead? If you take "live" matter apart, all you have is the same stuff as "dead" matter, nothing special at all, there is no real difference, all the physical laws are already the same, the only difference is that cells are more organised.
Michael F. D. Posted June 16, 2003 Author Posted June 16, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward If you take "live" matter apart, all you have is the same stuff as "dead" matter, nothing special at all, there is no real difference, all the physical laws are already the same, the only difference is that cells are more organised. I agree that alive and not alive matter this same thing on a level of atoms. In the same way, alive and not alive objects equally comply with the law of conservation their TC. It defines all actions (the behaviour) and priority for all objects. For alive objects, the manifestation of this law is obviously. In Biology, it is identified as the " law of self-preservation" . TC this is a program of existence, which is specific to each object. It more complex for alive objects. That is you are saying as " more organised".
Giles Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 Care to tell us what this 'law of self preservation' is? Preferably not in terms of this 'TC'.
Michael F. D. Posted June 17, 2003 Author Posted June 17, 2003 Originally posted by Giles Care to tell us what this 'law of self preservation' is? Preferably not in terms of this 'TC'. This is instinct inherent for all alive objects. It defines the problem of conservation of life as priority. The effect of this is all actions of the object - a defensive reactions, the searching of food, a duplication, self-improvement etc.
Sayonara Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. This is instinct inherent for all alive objects. It defines the problem of conservation of life as priority. The effect of this is all actions of the object - a defensive reactions, the searching of food, a duplication, self-improvement etc. Instinctual and innate behaviours don't need to be grouped under a grandiose "law". If they did, I'm fairly certain I'd have heard of it by now. Are you certain this isn't just a way of saying "I'm giving a new name to something that's already been demonstrated in order to bring some credibility to my untested hypothesis"?
Michael F. D. Posted June 18, 2003 Author Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Instinctual and innate behaviours don't need to be grouped under a grandiose "law". If they did, I'm fairly certain I'd have heard of it by now. Are you certain this isn't just a way of saying "I'm giving a new name to something that's already been demonstrated in order to bring some credibility to my untested hypothesis"? We reached an agreement (I hope), that alive and not alive matter this is a one thing and laws for them alike. The law (or instinct) of conservation of life is known long ago and obvious for alive objects. I am saying that it inherent to the not alive objects also. This I have named "the law of conservation of TC". Where is a contradiction and anti-science here?
Sayonara Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 What's anti-science is that you are relying on what you term 'obvious', without providing consistent data from repeatable experimentation. What's a contradiction is that you don't 'reach an agreement' with reality, you merely accept it - no matter how long it might take, it's inevitable.
Michael F. D. Posted June 19, 2003 Author Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ What's anti-science is that you are relying on what you term 'obvious', without providing consistent data from repeatable experimentation. What's a contradiction is that you don't 'reach an agreement' with reality, you merely accept it - no matter how long it might take, it's inevitable. Do you want to say that I must prove the existence of the self-preservation instinct in alive nature? I find no sense since this had proven already. It is possible bring the ensemble of examples confirming this statement. Check out the Biology and Zoology. I spoke already, that my theory does not disagree nor one of existing experimental data, but she explains their from the other points. P.S. You have done the statement, that all of you are a scientist here (refer to topic which was locked by you ). So you should know that prediction is not the proof itself. In the topic named " My predictions" I have brought the list of the predictions only. Proofs and examples always are located in the description of theories. I asked do not the "killing" statement, before reading the corresponding topics. You have ignored my request and have preferred to do a lot of absurdity claim, and close the topic. I understand, that my glance too unexpected for you. But this does not justifys your behaviour.
Sayonara Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Self preservation is a complex behaviour. What you are talking about are simple reflexive actions that make living organisms different to non-living matter about as much as does their ability to breathe. You have also failed to take into account the fact that a vast portion of life forms do not express any sort of self preserving behaviour. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is that if your theory overall is based on postulates, then you need to demonstrate that those postulates are correct. There is no 'law of self preservation', and having just finished a 5 year degree in biology which focused heavily on ecology, evolution and population dynamics, I think I'm in a good position to make such a claim. I don't need to 'check out the biology' - I already know it. Your other thread was closed because it was simply a list of foundless statements that spawned arguments. If you are going to make claims, back them up. If you'd like the opportunity to do so I will reopen the "My Predictions" thread.
fafalone Posted June 19, 2003 Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by matthew Irrelevant: You should've seen Faf ramble on and on about how Quixotica was the best scrambler ever, and everything in the world was inferior. I also find it funny his parents wouldn't give him money for a new computer because they said it wasn't important, and he got a new tennis racket(raquet) instead. Oh, and when he glined me for out-witting him over something rediculous. Memories... It WAS the best; that's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't believe a new computer was important, because they didn't understand what was wrong with the one I had. Whereas they clearly understood the need for a new raquet.
Michael F. D. Posted June 19, 2003 Author Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Self preservation is a complex behaviour. What you are talking about are simple reflexive actions that make living organisms different to non-living matter about as much as does their ability to breathe. You have also failed to take into account the fact that a vast portion of life forms do not express any sort of self preserving behaviour. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is that if your theory overall is based on postulates, then you need to demonstrate that those postulates are correct. There is no 'law of self preservation', and having just finished a 5 year degree in biology which focused heavily on ecology, evolution and population dynamics, I think I'm in a good position to make such a claim. I don't need to 'check out the biology' - I already know it. Your other thread was closed because it was simply a list of foundless statements that spawned arguments. If you are going to make claims, back them up. If you'd like the opportunity to do so I will reopen the "My Predictions" thread. Certainly you right. In this event. I have brought this example as an private event of more general law. To the more complex object corresponds the more complex reaction at external influence. However, a characteristic of conservations of its structure is inherent to the most simple object also. For destruction of the object or for creation of new one, an energy require . Herewith, the energy can stand out also. The most demonstrative example this a reactions of fission and syntheses of atomic nucleus. The energy,which stand out in reaction, this just a difference between Time Cycles of the source object and new one. Is this a casual coincidence, that object having greater energy has a greater time of existence or life? I think that is not. The value TC of object defines its energy. Its energy decreases with reduction of TC. So, where the time is directed ?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now