Travelling faster than light...

[ydoaPs]

Pulsoid Theory (slightly analogous to String Theory) is entirely based on hyper-relativistic oscillations that would certainly predict such information passing . . . and other non-local events; even such as the photon effect.

 

http://www.PulsoidTheory.com

your first post in this thread...not even close to on topic. you are just spamming the forums with you pseudoscience and need a warning or two.

 

 

edit: i just did a little tally, and with this thread alone, you have(being very nice to you) 37 warning points that you deserve.

[CPL.Luke]

have you submitted these papers to a non-peerreviewed journal such as arxiv?

 

I think part of your problem is that everyone here is atleast familiar with some physics, or enough to know that its not a theory unless it has some mathmatics to it.

 

if you were to load one of these papers into pdf you could submit it to arxiv for our viewing without fear that someone would steal it.

[Proof of One]

You've reinvented geometry. Big deal. There's nothing new in those statements, and you haven't done any physics so far as I can tell.

 

I believe that there is much significance to the finding of the Elliptical Constant; and, that after fifty years of "plying the trade," I believe I can see the significance of said constant relating to the universal Proof of One, which answers Gödel’s quest to prove the mathematics that underlies all the “proofs” of physics.

 

I also see much significance of said geometry in explaining the internal structure of a light wave, the method by which that light wave becomes mass, and why subatomic particles are structured as they are, etc.

 

As I remember, you are training in theoretical physics; have you studied SST extensively?

 

Concerning geometry, algebra, and physics:

 

The two don't talk physics much at home, she said.

 

She's interested in

geometrical approaches to

space and time, and he thinks algebraically.

 

"When he starts talking about

(exotic kinds of) algebras,

I just think, 'Yuuuccckk.' "

 

'A Lot of It's Guesswork'

.....

Patricia Schwarz with reference to her husband John Schwarz

.....

Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1999

Currently, there is no other theory that explains the phenomena, mentioned above, other than Pulsoid Theory; it would seem reasonable that Pulsoid Theory passes the logical and observation requirements to be an alternative theory until another one comes along.

 

Certainly, Pulsoid Theory is far superior to SST in addressing the enigmas of Reality.

 

Can you think of an alternative theory that fills the requirements that Pulsoid Theory does? Have you yet found any logic or mathematics of said Pulsoid Theory that you are in disagreement with?

[Locrian]

it would seem reasonable that Pulsoid Theory[/url'] passes the logical and observation requirements to be an alternative theory until another one comes along.

 

On the contrary, it seems quite useless, which is about the worst thing that can be said of any proposed theory.

[Proof of One]

have you submitted these papers to a non-peerreviewed journal such as arxiv?

This forum, and several others, are far superior to anything avaiable at arxiv.

 

I think part of your problem is that everyone here is at least familiar with some physics...

You are correct. The operative word is "some." The drawback is that, apparently, no one is responding that is a trained pure mathematician or theoretical physicist.

 

However, many are watching because this dialogue is getting top rankings through many search topics on Google and Yahoo.

 

The real significance of this Thread is the large number of Viewers that are just watching. And, that no original logic or mathematics is being challenged.

 

Such an audience and the participation/non-participation is not available ar arxiv or with peer review.

 

...or enough to know that its not a theory unless it has some mathmatics to it.

It is rife with original mathematics.

 

if you were to load one of these papers into pdf you could submit it to arxiv for our viewing without fear that someone would steal it.

I have sent many .pdf files of large manuscripts to individual physicist. I might add that the only responses that I have received have been rave notices.

[ydoaPs]

You are correct. The operative word is "some." The drawback is that, apparently, no one is responding that is a trained pure mathematician or theoretical physicist.

wow, no mathmaticians or physicists, eh?

 

can you read?

 

look under Tom Mattson's name and under Swansont's

[Proof of One]

On the contrary, it seems quite useless, which is about the worst thing that can be said of any proposed theory.

Fortunately, your opinion is not shared by everyone. Including many viewers herein; and, many others that have been receiving internet postings.

[ydoaPs]

Fortunately, your opinion is not shared by everyone. Including many viewers herein; and, many others that have been receiving internet postings.

have you actually read this thread?

[Proof of One]

have you actually read this thread?

Are you aware of the statistics that this Thread has on this forum. And, the Google and Yahoo rankings of these discussions.

[ydoaPs]

Are you aware of the statistics that this Thread has on this forum. And, the Google and Yahoo rankings of these discussions.

are you aware of how google works? everytime you spam this thread with "pulsoid theory" it goes up a knotch. as for the ranking on this site, it is mostly you and everyone telling you how stupid it is.

 

edit: it is also appeal to popularity and therefore meaningless

[Proof of One]

wow' date=' no mathmaticians or physicists, eh?

 

can you read?

 

look under Tom Mattson's name and under Swansont's[/quote']I have. I am well aware of their backgrounds, as with most others on this Thread.

 

It is the argument that one must focus on not the person as Tom has so well pointed out.

 

I have been hoping that Matt Grime would join in. I respect Matt; though, we certainly have not gotten along in another forum.

[ydoaPs]

I have. I am well aware of their backgrounds' date=' as with most others on this Thread.

 

It is the argument that one must focus on not the person as Tom has so well pointed out.

 

I have been hoping that Matt Grime would join in. I respect Matt; though, we certainly have not gotten along in another forum.[/quote']

what the flerk? first you say there are no mathematicians or physicists reading and then you say backgrounds don't matter. which is it?

[Proof of One]

are you aware of how google works? everytime you spam this thread with "pulsoid theory" it goes up a knotch. as for the ranking on this site' date=' it is mostly you and everyone telling you how stupid it is.

 

edit: it is also appeal to popularity and therefore meaningless[/quote']I generally agree with you; except, for the word "meaningless"

 

How 'bout staying on topic; avoiding ad hominem comments; and discussing specific logic and mathematics of Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with.

[Proof of One]

what the flerk? first you say there are no mathematicians or physicists reading and then you say backgrounds don't matter. which is it?

I will stand by my prior statements, which you have completely misconstrued, herein.

 

Let's get on-topic with specific logic and math that applies to the dialogue

[ydoaPs]

I generally agree with you; except' date=' for the word "meaningless"

 

How 'bout staying on topic; avoiding ad hominem comments; and discussing specific logic and mathematics of Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with.

let's see.....you are the one with the ad hominem, you brought the thread off topic, and your spam is not the topic of the thread.

[ydoaPs]

I will stand by my prior statements' date=' which you have completely misconstrued, herein.

 

Let's get on-topic with specific logic and math that applies to the dialogue[/quote']

how are they misconstrued?

[GeminiinimeG]

how can gravity equal acceleration. it is same thing as saying magnetism equals accerleration does it not?

 

And I think people should stop calling it speed of light because gravity supposedly travels at speed of light, meanins light might be travelling at the speed of gravity

[swansont]

As I remember' date=' you are training in theoretical physics; have you studied SST extensively?

[/quote']

 

 

Not, I believe that's Tom Mattson.

 

(Originally Posted by yourdadonapogos

wow' date=' no mathmaticians or physicists, eh?

 

can you read?

 

look under Tom Mattson's name and under Swansont's)

 

I am well aware of their backgrounds, as with most others on this Thread.[/quote']

 

Apparently not.

[swansont]

Have you yet found any logic or mathematics of said Pulsoid Theory[/url'] that you are in disagreement with?

 

I haven't found any specific predictions that the theory makes, so there's nothing with which to disagree. No way to test it.

 

All I see are a bunch of circular references. Or, in deference to your voluminous ramblings, perhaps they are elliptical references. But there's no substance to them.

[Janus]

how can gravity equal acceleration. it is same thing as saying magnetism equals accerleration does it not?

 

No, it is not. The equivalence of gravity and acceleration is due to the equality of 'gravitational' mass and 'inertial' mass(if I increase the gravitational mass of an object so that it attracts another mass more, I also increase its inertial mass and thus its resistance to acceleration, by the same factor). There is no such equality with magnetism. I can increase or decrease the magnetic field of an object without causing the same increase or decrease in its inertial mass and vice-versa. (I can increase the force of the magnetism of the object without increasing its resistance to acceleration.)

[Proof of One]

Not' date=' I believe that's Tom Mattson.

 

Apparently not.[/quote']I didn't read back carefully; or, note I wasn't responding to Tom; or, something.

 

I am overwhelmed with outside work (I have 70 some domains I operate; and, much e-mail); and, other forums are coming up with a sudden flurry of ridiculousness.

 

I thought when I made that statement concerning "in training" that I was replying to Tom.

 

I do respect your and Tom's effort and replies more than the others (though, you drive me nuts with the irrelevant stuff; get to the geometry and logic); you must know by now that I've withstood the rath of many of the leaders in the field; but, never had the oppurtunity, because of respect, to have the dialogues public.

 

With luck, sooner or laters, some world-class leaders will be goaded to respond at this forum. Unfortunately, though, probably, on your side. Hoping one of those quotes earlier today will find its way to John Schwarz.

 

Thanks again for catching my error. I doubt if I would have caught it if you didn't set the record straight.

 

Wish some of the younger members would read as carefully as you and Tom. They make me look bad. I'm in a lose/lose situation. Lose if I quibble; lose if I let the statements stand.

[ydoaPs]

there's another thread in which you can talk about your spam

[Proof of One]

I haven't found any specific predictions that the theory makes' date=' so there's nothing with which to disagree. No way to test it.

 

All I see are a bunch of circular references. Or, in deference to your voluminous ramblings, perhaps they are elliptical references. But there's no substance to them.[/quote']What outrageous flippancy.

 

You don't consider an explanation of the internal structure of a light wave to be of some substance to disagree with. Or, the existence of an Elliptical Constant, that has never been even suspected, that lends support to the entire field of mathematics that underlies all physical description. Or, the unbelievable beauty, as described by Weinberg, that one number in millions derived from complex quadratic equations yields the simple formula of integers for the Taisoidal radius, which heuristically represents the radius of a "quark," which Pulsoidal Theory demonstrates carries a full, rather than Murray Gell-Mann's fractional, charge. You haven't had the intellectual curiosity to ask "Why?"; or, specifically refute where the logic goes awry? Truly amazing, if one is a thinking physicist aware of the incongruities of all the Standard Models.

 

Both the COBE probe and Hubble Space Telescope verify many of the more unorthodox predictions of Pulsoid Theory.

 

Have you ever known a better description of "dark" matter, supposedly the Rosetta stone of theoretical physics; or, do you even know of any other logical explanation?

 

Do you understand anything about theoretical physics?

[ydoaPs]

does swansont know anything about theoretical physics? ha! lmfao...lolly roffles....|=!\/3...so on and such...

[Proof of One]

there's another thread in which you can talk about your spam

Thanks for tip. Where? Anything that brings accomplished theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians to the dialogue would be welcome relief.