Pulsoid Theory

[ydoaPs]

3. how, by trolling him somewhere else? that`s just as bad if not worse than the original problem you perceived!

really? it keeps that thread clear in the event that someone wants so elaborate on the actual topic of the thread.

[YT2095]

then lay off the trolling if that`s your sole intention!

[swansont]

I was on a full' date=' five year scholaeship (including living expenses) in a most elite program. My Curriculum Vitae was abruptly interrupted. Subsequently, I went from the deck of the New Jersey to the DMZ in Korea for an extended period of time.

 

You would have had to live in the McCarthy era to understand.[/quote']

 

 

I take this to mean that you have no degree of any sort from an accredited institution.

[Proof of One]

proofof one what capn' was trying to say is that if you post once and immediatly find that you need to add more to your post you can hit the edit button and expand on your post. WE don't like people to double post here let alone post 5 times in a row.

As usual, you are misleading.

 

This forum, unlike others, does not allow the deletion of a post.

 

Occasionally, probably due to a bandwidth problem, a submission is aborted. When I hit the "back" button and resubmit the reply, it is double posted. I then edit the post to a sentence, or so, and move on. Should you know how to delete a post on this forum, please advise me.

 

In the meantime, I have learned, when a submission is aborted, that I should reenter the thread and check to see if it is posted. Of course this runs the risk of losing data and requires a lot of time when one is replying at four forums simultaneously. (See: index/table of contents)

 

I prefer the double post gambit becaause, usually, when this happens at Physics Forum, I discover that my computer has been locked out; as has my reply to a misleading post by a mentor.

 

I never reply to a post from one individual with more than one post, except as noted above.

 

I never post drivel; or ask questions that can be readily found in any dictionary or easily Googled. In fact, I do much the opposite by citing many references. Can you please do the same.

 

…also I am quite familiar with inflation theory and know that it does in fact fit the data. I saw Alan Guth give a lecture at yale a few months back on it where he described the theory and showed how it fit the current observations of the universe. It is infact a modification of the big bang theory as it shows how the universe might have expanded from a small region of negative pressure into a large full scale universe.

I have been keenly interested in Alan’s work from the beginning of Inflation Theory and through all of its modifications.

 

Let’s just say that we agree to disagree concerning its implications regarding the accelerating, galactic recession paradox.

 

(negative pressure makes anti-gravity, sort of)

I refer to “anti-gravity” as Cosmic Inertia. I have carefully studied the phenomenon (some refer to it as the Cosmological Constant) for over fifty years. I am much impressed with Ernst Mach’s work. I am sure that I am correct with Cosmic Inertia. What could Newton have possibly understood about inertia? Einstein, with GR, admitted that he was baffled. Mach stood almost alone.

 

You might take a clue from Einstein.

[Proof of One]

I take this to mean that you have no degree of any sort from an accredited institution.

You are correct. It never seems to matter to my many world-class friends. Many of whom I have publicly cited.

[ydoaPs]

As usual' date=' you are misleading.

 

This forum, unlike others, does not allow the deletion of a post.

 

Occasionally, probably due to a bandwidth problem, a submission is aborted. When I hit the "back" button and resubmit the reply, it is double posted. I then edit the post to a sentence, or so, and move on. Should you know how to delete a post on this forum, please advise me.

 

In the meantime, I have learned, when a submission is aborted, that I should reenter the thread and check to see if it is posted. Of course this runs the risk of losing data and requires a lot of time when one is replying at four forums simultaneously. (See: index/table of contents)

 

I prefer the double post gambit becaause, usually, when this happens at Physics Forum, I discover that my computer has been locked out; as has my reply to a misleading post by a mentor.

 

I never reply to a post from one individual with more than one post, except as noted above.

that is why we have an edit button

I never post drivel

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! rofl lolly rofles lol lmfao ect.

You are correct. It never seems to matter to my many world-[/b']class friends. Many of whom I have publicly cited.

name dropping means nothing

[Proof of One]

that is why we have an edit button

Doesn't seem to help when the system double posts

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! rofl lolly rofles lol lmfao ect.

name dropping means nothing

Thanks for all your assistance.

 

You have been the perfect foil that is helping to drive the Viewers to record levels in a matter of hours.

 

Are you aware that your posts may be cached on Google for ontold years, where they will always be available to those that may know your pseudonym?

 

My concern is that you are wasting every good viewers time with your drivel.

[ydoaPs]

Doesn't seem to help when the system double posts

your fault, not the systems.

Thanks for all your assistance.

 

You have been the perfect foil that is helping to drive the Viewers to record levels in a matter of hours.

what does the number of viewers have to do with anything?

Are you aware that your posts may be cached on Google for ontold years, where they will always be available to those that may know your pseudonym?

yes....is there a point here?

My concern is that you are wasting every good viewers time with your drivel.

worried about MY drivel?

[CPL.Luke]

I was talking about antigravity as the force that exists in a region of space with negative pressure

 

I have always named my references, you don't seem to reference any of the dictionary definitions that you use.

 

I think what people really want to know here is what lead you to believe that there is an inner structure of a light wave? or what experimental result are you trying to describe more accuratly? basicly what are the origins of pulsoid theory? (not the historical origins)

 

without a reason for any of pulsoid theory to be right, why should researchers spend money or time trying to prove this theory right or wrong?

 

however please don't try and say that other theoretical physisists didn't have a reason for there various theories, because they did.

 

Einstein made SR out of maxwell's equations, he made GR trying to figure out the physics of an accelerating reference frame,

 

Newton made gravity out of planetary motion

 

Schrodinger had the double slit experiment

 

the list goes on but I don't want to list all of these items.

[Proof of One]

...you don't seem to reference any of the dictionary definitions that you use.

I have found most learned persons understand my precise vocabulary; those that don't usually own a dictionary and use it.

 

It's been many years since I have raised young children and have had to explain the meanings of simple everyday words that are used by the learned.

 

...what people really want to know here is what lead you to believe that there is an inner structure of a light wave?

In 1952 through 1954 I spent much time researching and thinking about the etiology of seminal motion. Serendipitously, the phenomenon occurred to me. Nothing has been the same since. And, no one has demonstrated otherwise.

 

To this day, no one else has ever considered the internal, geometric structure of a light wave; or the reason for that structure's particular shape. Yet, I have written about it on the internet for over 15 years.

 

….why should researchers spend money or time trying to prove this theory right or wrong?

Currently, 100s of millions are being spent to verify observations predicted by Pulsoid Theory over 50 years ago.

[swansont]

You are correct. It never seems to matter to my many world-[/b']class friends. Many of whom I have publicly cited.

 

Well, it does when you publicly claim to be a theoretical physicist, and when you belittle others for not being physicists - for not measuring up to some standard to which you do not measure. That's some ego you've got.

 

While you claim to be shut out of publication by conspiracy, I see absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with your claims just being crap being the reason nobody else will put their name on a paper with you. If the papers you've written are anything like the pages to which you link, it's no wonder you can't get published - there's nothing of any scientific merit that anyone would want to publish!

 

You've misrepresented your qualifications. How does anyone know what else you've misrepresented? How many of these meetings with great minds were actually you getting tossed out of the physics building and off campus for pestering them with your inane ideas?

[Proof of One]

Well, it does when you publicly claim to be a theoretical physicist, and when you belittle others for not being physicists

I don’t consciously belittle anyone for what they are. On occasion, when it seems warranted, I do question a persons training.

 

… - for not measuring up to some standard to which you do not measure.

My standards are IPSO.

 

As to whether I “measure” is for others to judge.

 

Obviously, your vote has been cast. (You, probably, decided to vote for G.W. Bush before the debates.)

 

That's some ego you've got.

I would equate the “ego” to more like professional hubris.

 

Hubris, wisely applied,

is a right earned by

long study; and, should be

reserved for those who

have introspective

intelligence

. . .

and wit.

 

It is quite difficult

......

knowing that you're right

............

. . .

when no one else agrees.

While you claim to be shut out of publication by conspiracy, I see absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with your claims just being crap being the reason nobody else will put their name on a paper with you.

You are not alone; your opinion is shared by many.

 

If the papers you've written are anything like the pages to which you link, it's no wonder you can't get published - there's nothing of any scientific merit that anyone would want to publish!

You may be on to something. Though, I’ll wager that Euclid would have wanted to know about the Elliptical Constant.

 

You've misrepresented your qualifications.

If I have, that is a most grievous error; and, you have every right to so expose.

 

How does anyone know what else you've misrepresented?

I know of nothing. If I am mistaken, someone will so advise. Many are paying attention.

 

How many of these meetings with great minds were actually you getting tossed out of the physics building and off campus for pestering them with your inane ideas?

I’ve been banned, thrown out, threatened with physical harm, all many times; but always by the acolytes . . . usually grad students and post docs. I'm sure you would not make me feel welcome.

 

I would judge the “great minds” enjoyed my thoughts as much as I enjoyed their thoughts. I have mounds of correspondence to that effect; never once requesting to be “off record.”

 

Well, maybe, J. A. Wheeler, alone, has written a bit that some might find disparaging; I didn’t; I was flattered.

[ydoaPs]

You are not alone; your opinion is shared by many.

think about it.....long and hard....

[Proof of One]

think about it.....long and hard....

I have. Is fifty plus years long enough.

 

No regrets, yet.

 

With a bit of luck, another twenty, or so, should be possible.

[ydoaPs]

have you ever thought there was a reason everyone says there is no scientific merit to anything you have presented?

[CPL.Luke]

I have only asked you to define terms that appear to have eitherbeen made up by you, or that you seem to be confused on. I could have defined theoretcial physisiist in my own words perfectly, but I chose to quote the wikipedian definition of theoretical physics as it has far more credibility than I have.

 

When you quote something give a reference, where that quote appeared (even for a notable physisist/ other notable persons) you have on several occasions given a dictionary definition without giving the name of the dictionary, different dictionaries have different definitions, some are more credible than others, or more accurate.

 

also your kidding yourself if you think that those hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to verify predictions made by pulsoid theory. They are being spent to verify other far more reputable theories.

 

Unless you can show otherwise, (and I am moderatly well versed with most experiments that cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars)

[Proof of One]

have you ever thought there was a reason everyone says there is no scientific merit to anything you have presented?

Yes, often.

 

Either I, or my critics are wrong.

 

However, as mathematics is not very subjective, it is undeniable that Pulsoid Theory is a Paradigm Shift in the field of Pure Mathematics.

 

It would seem that if Pure Mathematics is the the true foundation of descriptive physics, then my work could possibly have some "scientific merit."

 

The call is not mine to make with regards to physics.

[Proof of One]

Unless you can show otherwise, (and I am moderatly well versed with most experiments that cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars)

Then, I am sure that you are aware of Cosmic Vision 2015-2026, which proposals are all pretty much on the theme of Pulsoid Theory.

 

You might also check: SpaceRef.com

 

I might add that Pulsoid Theory nicely explains/predicts Quasar formation and Gamma-ray bursts.

 

Also, Caltech's efforts regarding gravity waves is approaching one billion dollars; Pulsoid Theory predicts that Caltech will not succeed.

 

A European consortium is planning to test for the Pioneer Anomaly. Search this site for “Pioneer” to find the announcement.

 

If the Pioneer Anomaly is a fact, it is a phenomenon that, currently, is only explicable with Pulsoid Theory.

 

Of course, the photon effect will always be the best evidence/proof of Pulsoid Theory.

[ydoaPs]

However' date=' as mathematics is not very subjective, it is undeniable that Pulsoid Theory is a Paradigm Shift in the field of Pure Mathematics.

 

It would seem that if Pure Mathematics is the the true foundation of descriptive physics, then my work could possibly have some "scientific merit."

 

The call is not mine to make with regards to physics.

there is a little problem. you still have provided no mathematics for it.

[Proof of One]

there is a little problem. you still have provided no mathematics for it.

Obviously, you have no ability when it comes to reading or understanding mathematics.

 

If there is a single formula or bit of logic that you do not understand at Pulsoid Theory, so state.

 

Otherwise you are wasting my time; and even worse, all of the time of outside viewers that are not the least interested in your infantile posts.

 

This Thread is rocketing to the top of the first page of Threads when sorted by Viewers. Don't embarrass yourself more than you have already.

 

Tripe is uncalled for; find the meat!!!

[ydoaPs]

show me a single equation from pulsoid theory

[Proof of One]

show me a single equation from pulsoid theory

The below link is to a post that has many "equations," as do many other posts that I have continually given you.

 

Are you unable to read; or otherwise deficient?

 

"The Mystique of the Ellipse."

[ydoaPs]

wow, you can graph an elipse. are you really this dense or do you just really need attention?

[CPL.Luke]

those projects are all based off of things other than pulsoid theory, you will find that not a single proposal submitted will reference pulsoid theory as something that it is trying to test.

 

also I think you believe that the views statistic is the number of people who have looked at a page, this is not true it is in fact the number of times people have accessed this page, since I have accessed it probably at least ten times today (just that much of a looser) you can knock that many views off of it, you could also knock the 20-30 times I've viewed it in the past. I'm sure that you and the rest of the people who have posted here have viewed the thread a great many times (at least twice for each post that they made in the thread). and lets see considering that there are 96 posts in the thread that means that there have been at least 192 views from people just posting, now take into account the fact that a person could have hit refresh while viewing the thread before posting adding 1 to the view count, take into account that not all of the people who posted here made a post every time they viewed the thread, you find that a large number of views is to be expected for a thread with 92 posts in it. There are no people silently reading this thread who actually believe your idea, (also why would they not have posted if they agreed with your logic?)

 

 

 

also does the system add a view if you go to a different page within the same thread? I would imagine yes but could not speak to this as a fact.

 

 

EDIT: ah post number 666 (on my count) the time has come where I shall rise as the anti-christ that I am, do not be suprised if the world is over when you awake.

[Proof of One]

...the views statistic is the number of people who have looked at a page, this is not true it is in fact the number of times people have accessed this page, since I have accessed it probably at least ten times today (just that much of a looser) you can knock that many views off of it, you could also knock the 20-30 times I've viewed it in the past.

Your information is interesting.

 

No matter how many times I view a post or move around a Thread, page, or topic. Or, close, refresh or reopen my browser, the view count never changes.

 

It appears to me that it is linked to an IP address and does not tabulate multiple views.

 

I am curious. Maybe the staff can explain the system?

 

Try as I might, I have never been able to add a view.

 

You seem to know something that I don't understand too well.