Reference Theory and the Final Model

[Klaynos]

Or right. As the case may be. Lets not be narrow and dogmatic here.

 

Care to answer the questions then?

[iNow]

Klaynos... he's a troll. He won't be answering any questions any time soon.

[mooeypoo]

Thats because CLEARLY he has no answers. Just opinions. That are not based on anything scientific.

 

Oh.. damn.. here I go being pesky again. Me and my demand for scientific methodoloy. <sigh> And in a ScienceForums no less. tsk tsk on me.

 

 

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Rather than engaging in discussion on how "dogmatic" and troll-like we all are, can we just discuss Graviphoton's hypotheses? It would make things a little easier.

 

Graviphoton, if you wouldn't mind, please answer the questions posed to you. The rest of you: perhaps this thread would go more smoothly without hostility. If it doesn't, well, that'll be the end of this thread...

[nstansbury]

Is there others here who find my posts repulsively difficult to understand?

 

Graviphoton, as a relative bystander to this thread I can hand-on-heart, honestly say I don't have the vaguest notion of what you are going on about.

 

Firstly, you sort of tripped at the first hurdle:

Its actually good, because then it cannot be so crack pot.

 

An idea's goodness is not determined in whether it makes you a crack pot or not, it whether it has scientifically valid, peer reviewed evidence to support it.

 

 

However...for me.. what does just this part mean:

If my law that states:

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.

The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the rule that the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’

 

1. "bubble of spacetime"? What does that mean? Was Einstein wrong?
   
2. "correlates to a point in external space and time". But previously you said "neither exists in time nor space". I don't understand.
   
3. "the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system" Are you suggesting that t - which I take is Time (as I didn't see it defined)' date=' that [math']t^2[/math] determines the probability of a quantum state? The only reason I ask is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude equation seems at odds with yours, how would you rectify that?
   

[Mr Skeptic]

Graviphoton, if you wouldn't mind, please answer the questions posed to you. The rest of you: perhaps this thread would go more smoothly without hostility. If it doesn't, well, that'll be the end of this thread...

 

Clearly a win-win!

 

Graviphoton, as a relative bystander to this thread I can hand-on-heart, honestly say I don't have the vaguest notion of what you are going on about.

 

Welcome to the club.

 

---

 

Anyhow, I doubt that Graviphoton will answer the questions to anyone's satisfaction, but that's up to him I suppose.

[Reaper]

Update: Graviphoton's seven day suspension has been extended to coincide with the eventual contraction of the Universe.

 

I doubt Graviphoton will be around to answer any questions, ever.

[Mr Skeptic]

I doubt Graviphoton will be around to answer any questions, ever.

 

Isn't there a possibility that by the time the universe ends, humanity might figure out a way to survive the contraction (if it contracts, that is)? Maybe go to the biggest void there is and expand it some more, or something more fancy. We'd have billions of years to figure it out.

[ydoaPs]

Isn't there a possibility that by the time the universe ends, humanity might figure out a way to survive the contraction (if it contracts, that is)? Maybe go to the biggest void there is and expand it some more, or something more fancy. We'd have billions of years to figure it out.

 

:confused::confused: