Energy

[keelanz]

We gave up because you seem to be utterly convinced you're right despite the comments we're making to the contrary.

 

your comments dont prove anything, my analogies do..... you showed no external links or proof, you just said i was contradicting reality (without explaining how)

im not convinced im right, i came up with the idea so its mine to hold, however unless you can prove me wrong without saying "your wrong you contradicted reality" then what values to your comments really have? if you had some mathematical, scientific or logical proof that my assertion is fallacy then well....i will eat my hat, until then at least one human knows the truth

 

i even apologized for offending you.....seems to have backfired, perhaps if my response were more offensive you may have felt the need to defend yourself? ah well im sure theres other forums

 

ill take it

A) you cant prove scientifically im wrong or

B) youve given up trying.

 

 

i say given up trying because as yet you havent proved scientifically im wrong

Edited April 21, 2011 by keelanz

[swansont]

"lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway" sucks a lot of air out of the room, and "as yet you havent proved scientifically im wrong" finishes the job, when you've ignored every response thus far. Finding derivations of E=mc^2 aren't that hard to find. Google is your friend. Complaining that nobody has spoon fed you the information just makes you look lazy.

[keelanz]

"lets just say im gona believe what i want anyway" sucks a lot of air out of the room, and "as yet you havent proved scientifically im wrong" finishes the job, when you've ignored every response thus far. Finding derivations of E=mc^2 aren't that hard to find. Google is your friend. Complaining that nobody has spoon fed you the information just makes you look lazy.

 

The first statement did suck the air out of the room but only a room that was full of people who had already been suffocated by the looks of it.

I said that statement at that point in time because people werent looking at my analogy, you guys didnt like what it suggested so you blindy refuted it without any evidence other than "you dont get to make your own definition of energy" & "your contradicting reality" (i was defining energy in a logical sense not making my own definition BTW & i see no proof of any contradiction) so hence i told people who had nothing to show that ill take their nothingness and do nothing with it. I dont want or need to be spoon fed i was looking for an intellectual discussion regarding my analogies, obviously thats asking far too much of scientists.

 

I thought perhaps my in-depth explanations, over the top analogies and all round input into this topic might just show my eagerness and determination to figure it out, quite the opposite of lazy, i simply asked mooey for external links as she said she may have some to suggest (thats after apologizing for any offense i may have caused).

 

I created a thread not necessarily to prove but to show you guys that i already understood the concepts of e=mc^2, which as long as you were able to grasp my outlook on it then i wouldnt of had to endlessly study different peoples views on explaining e=mc^2, if you guys actually read that thread (which im presuming you did) then i thought perhaps you would link me to a specific website whereby it explains a concept i have perhaps missed (but you swonsont actually gave me a link which suggested something quite similar to myself before i even started on this thread)

 

Which can only lead me to the natural conclusion that my idea is right, i dont want to be put on a pedestal i just want an active discussion which deals directly which my analogies rather than being told im wrong without any proof of how.

 

for the luls

 

http://www.kontraban.../Meme-Rap/#show

 

 

peace, love and a little science

 

P.S where can i make a topic on luls? lounge?

 

 

If energy is in this system then wouldn't you be referring to string theory that if you tweak these strings it becomes a dark matter particle and if you tweak it again it becomes energy? since you can make any particle by changing the wary bottom of it (roots/strings) still you wouldn't "make" energy you would only change already existing matter

 

No i dont really go by any dimensions above the 4th but including the 10th so thats our 3Dimensional world, time and the all the possibilities of the laws of physics(gravity, magnetism, SOL) its my opinion that a logical system could allow for all these possibilities. once the 10th dimension has been reached logically all permutations would have been expressed so at that point you could repeat infinitely but your not getting anything that hasnt already been defined. Once you go past 10 dimensions things like string theory try to explain whats outside them boarders but realistically it can still only be defined within the 10 dimensions.

 

 

This is just my subjective outlook, i dont have any hard evidence to prove it.

 

To me when theoretical physics starts dealing with anything other than the 1st dimension then it just becomes an illusion, 1 must exist but as long as we have 1 we can make 2, once we have 2 we can make 3 or 4 from what we already have etc etc. So when things like theoretical quantum physics tries explaining our reality i perceive it as nothing but a romantic/religious outlook of being multiple versions of ourselves too many times over too comprehend.

 

as far as converting the energy goes you are still creating it as long as that possibility has not yet been lived so although it can exist within the realms of the logical system if it hasnt yet then by doing so you are making 2 from 1(creating something that doesnt exist from something that does)

 

in other words if everything is theoretically possible then you create energy when you do one of the possibilities that have not yet been done...pow

Edited April 22, 2011 by keelanz

[mooeypoo]

It's not theoretically possible, it's imaginatively possible. Write a fiction novel, then, and stop claiming to do science.

 

 

We've provided all the necessary refutations and links and information. Claiming we're the ones with the closed mind is mindbogglingly ironic when you're the one refusing the even CONSIDER any of our points.

 

~mooey

[keelanz]

It's not theoretically possible, it's imaginatively possible. Write a fiction novel, then, and stop claiming to do science.

 

 

We've provided all the necessary refutations and links and information. Claiming we're the ones with the closed mind is mindbogglingly ironic when you're the one refusing the even CONSIDER any of our points.

 

~mooey

 

According to the 10 dimensions every physical possibility is theoretically possible.

 

so all the links are equal to ZERO? the only information you you provided was "its not my fault you dont understand science" and you didnt refute anything you only claim im wrong because my idea contradicts e=mc^2 (infact it doesnt even contradict it, it just changes its use)

 

heres a better idea than my idea, how about instead of telling me im wrong, you show me using my analogy how im wrong? because otherwise your not really doing anything but telling me what i already know (I.E that you believe e=mc^2.....)

 

by the way lots of theoretical science contradicts each other, you are aware of this right?

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

When you can't conform to existing experimental evidence or even admit it exists I think you should give up. I'd recommend finding a physics text book and sitting down for a few hours and coming back with some questions NOT more preaching.

Thread closed.