Pulsoid Theory

[Proof of One]

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

Thanks. I had hoped you would like it.

 

Apparently, you found nothing wrong with the equations. I appreciate that you could find no logical or mathematical mistakes.

 

Some think I am dense; and, I suppose, at times, we all enjoy a little attention.

 

You surely are a fine example to broach the subject of attention requirement.

[ydoaPs]

Thanks. I had hoped you would like it.

 

Apparently' date=' you found nothing wrong with the equations. I appreciate that you could find no logical or mathematical mistakes.

 

Some think I am dense; and, I suppose, at times, we all enjoy a little attention.

 

You surely are a fine example to broach the subject of attention requirement.[/quote']

you still have presented nothing. an elipse...wow, how groundbreaking. you provide no quantitative predictions of any kind. and the qualitative predictions you say you have, have no connection with pulsoid theory.

[Proof of One]

you still have presented nothing. an elipse...wow, how groundbreaking. you provide no quantitative predictions of any kind. and the qualitative predictions you say you have, have no connection with pulsoid theory.

Obviously, you still can't read; continue to post tripe; and neglect every direct question I ask.

 

Some performance, indeed.

[ydoaPs]

Obviously' date=' you still can't read; continue to post tripe; and neglect every direct question I ask.

 

Some performance, indeed.[/quote']are you sure you're not describing your posts? ok, give me a direct question.

[Proof of One]

are you sure you're not describing your posts? ok, give me a direct question.

I'll give you a few. All answers can be found at http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

What is the Elliptical Constant (EC)? How is the EC related to the Proof of One?; How do they both relate to Number Theory?; and, Why does Number Theory impact descriptive physics?

[ydoaPs]

I'll give you a few. All answers can be found at http://www.PulsoidTheory.com.

 

What is the Elliptical Constant (EC)? How is the EC related to the Proof of One?; How do they both relate to Number Theory?; and' date=' Why does Number Theory impact descriptive physics?[/quote']

why should i answer them when you have yet to do so in such a way that is not circular?

[Proof of One]

why should i answer them when you have yet to do so in such a way that is not circular?

If you can find an instance of something that is circular, I will immediatly fix it.

 

Your assertions, that are never supported, are becoming lame.

 

Can you find no mistake in logic or math? I have posted at least 60 original ideas.

 

There must be one that you can find some perceived fault with?

[CPL.Luke]

proof of one, your asking questions about what pulsoid theory is in no way shows that your point is right.

[Proof of One]

proof of one, your asking questions about what pulsoid theory is in no way shows that your point is right.

No. But, I am replying to a direct question.

 

Something that I find quite lacking in the posts from several of the younger members.

[ydoaPs]

If you can find an instance of something that is circular, I will immediatly fix it.

i told you SEVERAL TIMES. EVERY SINGLE TERM YOU INTRODUCE IS DEFINED IN A CIRCULAR MANNER.

 

Your assertions, that are never supported, are becoming lame.

mine are asserted.....mostly by your links. yours, however, are not.

 

Can you find no mistake in logic or math?

it's hard to find a mistake in math that does not exist.

 

There must be one that you can find some perceived fault with?

all of them that are based on c=infinity and speed of grav=infinity.

 

No. But, I am replying to a direct question.

 

Something that I find quite lacking in the posts from several of the younger members.

you have sidestepped nearly every question that has been asked of you.

[CPL.Luke]

also, if you take the speed of light and or gravity to be infinity, then you don't have to worry about the motion of the packets, as they don't really move just appear at the end of there journey

[Proof of One]

i told you SEVERAL TIMES. EVERY SINGLE TERM YOU INTRODUCE IS DEFINED IN A CIRCULAR MANNER[/size']

In that case you should have no difficulty locating a single one so that I can attempt to correct it.

 

My offer is certainly better than other physicists that have been unable to do such with the conventional four dimensions.

 

Perhaps you should direct your wrath towards the Pomo elite physicists, as well.

 

At least I will gladly make the attempt at rectifying your perceived confusion. Just one word please, I must have 100 or more neologisms and acronyms from which to pick.

 

Otherwise, I must assume that your plaint is without merit; or possibly, you don't understand the term "Circular Definition," which I provided you earlier . . . admitedly, without citing the Dictionary that I used.

 

Should you be able to cite any Dictionary that has a substantially different definition, I will reconsider your point as significant.

[Proof of One]

also, if you take the speed of light and or gravity to be infinity, then you don't have to worry about the motion of the packets, as they don't really move just appear at the end of there journey

Apparently, you understand little of what the term speed of gravity means.

 

As far as the speed of light, particularly, in the Congeneric Realm of Dissipation, I have not said that it propagates at the speed of Infinity; I have said that its speed like Cosmic Inertia is not constant.

 

The internal speed of oscillation that is responsible for the ellipsoidal structure of a light wave is near the speed of Infinity.

 

Either pay attention when you read; or, cite examples when you state your opinion as to what I contend.

 

Your endless, non-informed carping must be irritating to many that would like to get on with the substance of this Thread.

 

I note that it is the youngest of members which appear to understand the least.

[swansont]

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

[/quote']

 

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

You told me that I obviously had not been trained as a theoretical physicist, and YT that his not being a physicist limited his value in the discussion.

 

 

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

 

I thought you proudly proclaimed that you didn't engage in ad hominem arguments?

 

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

 

But you're not a professional, and you have no accomplishments recognized by the physics community.

 

---

 

 

This likely ends my participation here. If, perchance, there should be some physics to discuss, that would change. But your steadfast refusal to answer questions of a scientific nature makes continuing a pointless waste of time.

[insane_alien]

POO why don't you just cut and paste all the equations you have for pulsoid theory onto a post in this thread and then we will go through them.

[ydoaPs]

In that case you should have no difficulty locating a single one so that I can attempt to correct it.

again with the sidestepping...why? just pick one.

 

My offer is certainly better than other physicists that have been unable to do such with the conventional four dimensions.

how are they circularly defined........i'll take a shot......[math]\vec{x}[/math], [math]\vec{y}[/math], [math]\vec{z}[/math], and [math]\vec{t}[/math] are vector spaces that are orthogonal to each other.

 

 

At least I will gladly make the attempt at rectifying your perceived confusion. Just one word please, I must have 100 or more neologisms and acronyms from which to pick.

and none of them mean a thing until you define them in a non-circular manner

 

Otherwise, I must assume that your plaint is without merit; or possibly, you don't understand the term "Circular Definition," which I provided you earlier . . . admitedly, without citing the Dictionary that I used.

stop with the sidestepping, unless, of course, you actually do have nothing and are just looking for attention...

 

Should you be able to cite any Dictionary that has a substantially different definition, I will reconsider your point as significant.

a dictionary is NOT a technical resource

[Proof of One]

You told me that I obviously had not been trained as a theoretical physicist, and YT that his not being a physicist limited his value in the discussion.

Without further checking, I will accept your statements.

 

I thought you proudly proclaimed that you didn't engage in ad hominem arguments?

I try very hard to not so do; I doubt very much that I made the statement as you reflect it.

 

But you're not a professional, and you have no accomplishments recognized by the physics community.

I am a professional. I have many accomplishments recognized by the physics community. I have no accomplishments that are formally recognized by said community. Not certain as to where the fault may lie.

 

This likely ends my participation here.

You will probably be missed by some.

 

If, perchance, there should be some physics to discuss, that would change.

There is plenty of physics that I would like to discuss; you may pick any topic; and, I will see what I can do with it.

 

But your steadfast refusal to answer questions of a scientific nature makes continuing a pointless waste of time.

You have made a general accusation, which is impossible to reply to; if you could be specific concerning the questions that I have refused to answer, everyone would be able to understand your position; and, just possibly, I might be able to reply.

[ydoaPs]

I am a professional. I have many accomplishments recognized by the physics community. I have no accomplishments that are formally recognized by said community. Not certain as to where the fault may lie.

do you get paid for your pulsoid theory stuff? btw, not being formally recognized by scientific community=not being recognized by the scientific community....funny how that works, eh?

 

There is plenty of physics that I would like to discuss; you may pick any topic; and, I will see what I can do with it.

how about any actual physics from pulsoid theory

 

You have made a general accusation, which is impossible to reply to; if you could be specific concerning the questions that I have refused to answer, everyone would be able to understand your position; and, just possibly, I might be able to reply.

and his accusation was correct

[Proof of One]

again with the sidestepping...why? just pick one.

Obviously, I am curious as to whether you can find a single one; then, I am curious as to which one you select and your reasoning for its selection. From a practical approach, I cannot take the time to refute a negative some 100, or so, times. And, lastly, I don’t believe there is one that you can find.

 

how are they circularly defined........i'll take a shot......[math]\vec{x}[/math], [math]\vec{y}[/math], [math]\vec{z}[/math], and [math]\vec{t}[/math'] are vector spaces that are orthogonal to each other.

You have made my point; as many learned persons should agree.

 

and none of them mean a thing until you define them in a non-circular manner

Pick one. I should be able to define it non-circularly.

 

stop with the sidestepping, unless, of course, you actually do have nothing and are just looking for attention...

Me thinks, thou protests too much . . .

 

a dictionary is NOT a technical resource

Tell that one to a lexicographer.

[ydoaPs]

Obviously' date=' I am curious as to whether you can find a single one; then, I am curious as to which one you select and your reasoning for its selection. From a practical approach, I cannot take the time to refute a negative some 100, or so, times. And, lastly, I don’t believe there is one that you can find.

[/quote']i have told you several.

 

You have made my point; as many learned persons should agree.

how so?

 

Me thinks, thou protests too much . . .

methinks you keep sidestepping because you don't have a damn thing.

 

Tell that one to a lexicographer.

congratulations, you can officially pull stuff out of context. want a cookie?

[Proof of One]

do you get paid for your pulsoid theory stuff? btw' date=' not being formally recognized by scientific community=not being recognized by the scientific community....funny how that works, eh?

 

how about any actual physics from pulsoid theory

 

and his accusation was correct[/quote']As usual, just nonsensical, bantering tripe. I will let the above stand as its best rebuttal.

[ydoaPs]

As usual, just nonsensical, bantering tripe. I will let the above stand as its best rebuttal.

everything in that post was valid....once again you are sidestepping

[Proof of One]

i have told you several.

Yet, quite apparently, not one that you can recall.

[ydoaPs]

Yet, quite apparently, not one that you can recall.

every single one

[CPL.Luke]

proof of one, derive the basics of pulsoid theory right heere, or photocopy one of the many odcuments you claim to possess into here.

 

One of the problems with your website is you present a few dozen threads without any order as to which one comes first in understanding pulsoid theory.