Things that are wrong imo

[Popcorn Sutton]

Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects.

 

M theory is wrong in its current form, it assumes 11 dimensions which is counter intuitive, anything more than 0 dimensions is also counter intuitive. There are points in space that collide, thats what I know. They exist in nothing more than 0 dimensions.

 

String theory is plausible, as long as it doesnt assume more than 1 dimension that consists of 2 zero dimensional points, both being repulsive, one being parametric. Super symmetry of black holes probably produces most matter in the universe. The universe was probably not a single entity at one point, the universe (as we have come to know it to this point) probably only consists of our own galaxy.

 

Question, why is everything so flat? Possibility, super symmetry of super solid objects, which have become known as black holes.

 

The way to mine an energy that will allow us to travel through the known universe is by reaching as far into the center of a star and pulling out the materialwe can, that compressed element will give us a gravitational force that is so repulsive that it might, if focused, provide us with warp drive capacity. It may be able to be produced in a lab if we are able to produce a vacuum fast enough to suck out all the heat being produced by the compressed material and cool it so we can do so safely.

 

Parallel universes are wrong to an extent, all moments in time probably exist simultaneously, they just exist at greater distances from our known reality. Time travel is possible if we were to be able to travel these distances.

 

Folding space is not achievable. Compressing it is, however. (Although I do believe that space itself is a category error)

 

Space consists of many different compressed elements, most of which are not visible or able to be felt. Our senses probably cannot detect most of the elements in our universe. Elements all consist of one energy at its core, and that is the repulsive force. All elements are parametric. A true vacuum would be the greatest achievement of mankind. A true vacuum would probably solidify time which would be the force that creates all matter.

 

Time is a category error. There is only the mind.

 

There is no such thing as a subatomic particles, when you smash two particles together, they break into n/2 particles.

 

Quantum entanglement is fast, but its probably not instant.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

A prudent reminder that the rules of the Speculations forum dictate that you must provide evidence for your claims. I suggest you do this or the thread will be closed.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I will either provide as many citations as possible when I can, or I would appreciate having the thread moved to the appropriate place (even if it is the trash can).

[SamBridge]

Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects.

No reputable scientist said they were a literal hole. They are not "super-solid", we don't know what the singularity is made out of.

 

M theory is wrong in its current form, it assumes 11 dimensions which is counter intuitive, anything more than 0 dimensions is also counter intuitive. There are points in space that collide, thats what I know. They exist in nothing more than 0 dimensions.

No one proved m-theory right, but it doesn't matter if you think 11 dimensions are counter-intuitive, if the math is right there's nothing you can do about it. In current atomic theories there's 6 dimensions. Argueably Anything more than 3 or 4 is counter intuitive because out brains are adapted utilized to use those specific dimensions.

 

String theory is plausible, as long as it doesnt assume more than 1 dimension that consists of 2 zero dimensional points, both being repulsive, one being parametric. Super symmetry of black holes probably produces most matter in the universe. The universe was probably not a single entity at one point, the universe (as we have come to know it to this point) probably only consists of our own galaxy.

String theory can assume as many dimensions as it says is logical to. Singularites have no super-symmetric partner, they are not recognized as their own particle class and black holes do not produce any measurable amount of mass. Furthermore, LHC has failed to provide evidence for super-symmetry.

 

Question, why is everything so flat? Possibility, super symmetry of super solid objects, which have become known as black holes.

Nothing is actually "flat", things only appear flat because you cannot see their complexity. Even the fabric of space has many many small fluxes. Super-Solids are not a particle class, they cannot have a super-symmetric partner.

 

The way to mine an energy that will allow us to travel through the known universe is by reaching as far into the center of a star and pulling out the materialwe can, that compressed element will give us a gravitational force that is so repulsive that it might, if focused, provide us with warp drive capacity. It may be able to be produced in a lab if we are able to produce a vacuum fast enough to suck out all the heat being produced by the compressed material and cool it so we can do so safely.

If you have a device that can mine stars and withstand the heat of a thousand nuclear bombs per second by all means build it. As for synthesizing elements that would take massive amounts of energy, in fact it would take the core of a star to do it with any sort of efficiency.

 

Parallel universes are wrong to an extent, all moments in time probably exist simultaneously, they just exist at greater distances from our known reality. Time travel is possible if we were to be able to travel these distances.

Parallel universes have no proof, but time is not simultaneous. If I take two clocks, place one on Earth and one on Jupiter, and count one second on Earth, the clock on Jupiter will be slow when we go back to measure it. This is called gravitational time dilation.

 

Space consists of many different compressed elements, most of which are not visible or able to be felt. Our senses probably cannot detect most of the elements in our universe. Elements all consist of one energy at its core, and that is the repulsive force. All elements are parametric. A true vacuum would be the greatest achievement of mankind. A true vacuum would probably solidify time which would be the force that creates all matter.

The fabric of space-time is not comprised of either matter or energy, it is an inherent topology of existence. We have recorded every naturally occurring element that can last for more than a few seconds. Atomic numbers above 96 break down too rapidly to exist in any conditions we know of. A vacuum solidifying time makes no logical sense as well.

 

Time is a category error. There is only the mind.

If that were true then physics would not be constant from all frames of reference.

 

Quantum entanglement is fast, but its probably not instant.

It has nothing to do with velocity, it is in fact always instantaneous because it is a correlation and not a causation.

Edited June 13, 2013 by SamBridge

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok, now that the new episode of through the wormhole is done i will provide evidence based on what I have come to know through my experience with science (although it is getting late so I might be interrupted by bed time).

 

Black holes are super solid objects was my first point. We believe that black holes are "created" by dying stars. Stars are repulsive in the sense that they produce a lot of heat and light that escapes their gravitational force. That is because of the compression of elements occurring closer to the center of the star. Compression has been known to cause elements like iron to exist. If black holes come from stars, we can't see them because they are at the center of the compression, and therefor they are extremely solid. When they are released from their surroundings, they repel the space surrounding them, causing an extremely strong gravitational field due to the energy of fusing what we have come to know as space, probably causing a massive amount of neutrino like particles to "suck" the surroundings toward it, causing friction, also causing a wormhole at the poles.

 

M theory is wrong in its current form is my next assertion. Im not aware of its actual current form, but what I am aware of is that there is no known observable membrane that surrounds our galaxy, the only thing I can think of that would be similar to a membrane is a flat surface, which has been discovered in most cases not to be flat, but spherical, spheres are efficient.

 

I say that all dimensions can be reduced in truth to zero dimensions because of the two slit experiment. When the light is observed, it does not interfere with itself. This shows the power of the mind. It solidifies physical substances at a point of reference, which is zero dimensional. Take all these zero dimensional points, and assume they are all the same thing, and also assume that they are entangled, and you can sufficiently explain expansion by saying that they are all the same point meaning that they are all affected.

 

The last point ties into my next point about string theory. I say that they are both repulsive forces, but one is parametric. The earth has volcanoes, we observe buoyancy, we observe pressure fluctuations, therefor I must conclude that the earths true gravitational center is actually repulsive and probably very solid, however, the other repulsive force which is not parametric is causing us to stick to the planet. Super symmetry of solid objects is just two solid objects spinning at the same rate hitting each other at the same speed, which hasnt been observed because its probably one of the rarest events in our universe.

[ACG52]

Popcorn, I can't understand why the moderators continue to allow you to post this empty nonsense.

[SamBridge]

 

Black holes are super solid objects was my first point. We believe that black holes are "created" by dying stars. Stars are repulsive in the sense that they produce a lot of heat and light that escapes their gravitational force. That is because of the compression of elements occurring closer to the center of the star. Compression has been known to cause elements like iron to exist. If black holes come from stars, we can't see them because they are at the center of the compression, and therefor they are extremely solid. When they are released from their surroundings, they repel the space surrounding them, causing an extremely strong gravitational field due to the energy of fusing what we have come to know as space, probably causing a massive amount of neutrino like particles to "suck" the surroundings toward it, causing friction, also causing a wormhole at the poles.

When elements lighter than iron fuse, they release enough energy to make the star expand and overcome the gravitational force preventing it from collapsing. When only iron is left, the star cannot produce enough outward heat to stop the star from collapsing, so depending on its mass it will collapse and shed its out layers and form a different nebula with a different core, sometimes a white dwarf, sometimes a neutron star, sometimes a black hole. Nothing to do with neutrinos or space repelling.

 

 

 

M theory is wrong in its current form is my next assertion. Im not aware of its actual current form, but what I am aware of is that there is no known observable membrane that surrounds our galaxy, the only thing I can think of that would be similar to a membrane is a flat surface, which has been discovered in most cases not to be flat, but spherical, spheres are efficient.

Then you can't say it's wrong, you can only say its unproven.

 

 

 

The last point ties into my next point about string theory. I say that they are both repulsive forces, but one is parametric. The earth has volcanoes, we observe buoyancy, we observe pressure fluctuations, therefor I must conclude that the earths true gravitational center is actually repulsive and probably very solid, however, the other repulsive force which is not parametric is causing us to stick to the planet. Super symmetry of solid objects is just two solid objects spinning at the same rate hitting each other at the same speed, which hasnt been observed because its probably one of the rarest events in our universe.

Incoherent are sentences these.

 

 

 

I say that all dimensions can be reduced in truth to zero dimensions because of the two slit experiment. When the light is observed, it does not interfere with itself. This shows the power of the mind. It solidifies physical substances at a point of reference, which is zero dimensional. Take all these zero dimensional points, and assume they are all the same thing, and also assume that they are entangled, and you can sufficiently explain expansion by saying that they are all the same point meaning that they are all affected.

Dimensions are not reducible objects, there are ways to define the location and physical existence of something. This has little to do with the mind, dimensions exist whether we acknowledge them or not.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

More speculation does not constitute evidence. Last chance, or the thread's getting closed.

[pwagen]

 

M theory is wrong in its current form is my next assertion. Im not aware of its actual current form(...)

...what?

 

To elaborate, I don't think saying "X is wrong" immediately followed by "I don't know what X is" lends credibility.

Edited June 13, 2013 by pwagen

[Ophiolite]

Popcorn Sutton, it seems reasonable to suppose that you have an interest in science, since you post on a science forum and take a significant amount of time out of your day to construct and make posts on this forum. That interest in science should, you would think, unite all members here. It should give us a common ground to work on. So, I have some related questions:

 

Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand that that method does not require, or tolerate idle, unsubstantiated speculation that ignores current observations and explanations.?

 

Do you understand that what you are posting here is not science in any shape, or form, or universe? If your interest in science is genuine, why do you post this - forgive my bluntness - drivel?

 

Why do you not, instead, make a real effort to learn? Why do you not ask questions of knowledgeable members to broaden your knowledge?

 

It seems to me that if you choose not to do so, but continue with these frivolous excursions of the imagination, then you are wasting your time and everyone elses time who chances across your posts.

[Bignose]

Popcorn Sutton, it seems reasonable to suppose that you have an interest in science, since you post on a science forum and take a significant amount of time out of your day to construct and make posts on this forum. That interest in science should, you would think, unite all members here. It should give us a common ground to work on. So, I have some related questions:

 

Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand that that method does not require, or tolerate idle, unsubstantiated speculation that ignores current observations and explanations.?

 

Do you understand that what you are posting here is not science in any shape, or form, or universe? If your interest in science is genuine, why do you post this - forgive my bluntness - drivel?

 

Why do you not, instead, make a real effort to learn? Why do you not ask questions of knowledgeable members to broaden your knowledge?

 

It seems to me that if you choose not to do so, but continue with these frivolous excursions of the imagination, then you are wasting your time and everyone elses time who chances across your posts.

Bravo, +1, and I'm not sure it could have been said better, my friend.

[krash661]

have you ever heard of this guy ?

 

srinivasa ramanujan

[John Cuthber]

have you ever heard of this guy ?

 

srinivasa ramanujan

Yes, but it's rather difficult to see it as having anything to do with the topic.

Ramanujan was a great mathematician, a genius in most people's opinion.

Popcorn, on the other hand, is not.

[krash661]

Yes, but it's rather difficult to see it as having anything to do with the topic.

it's because you do not know anything about his theorems,

and what they are being used for

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

It would be appreciated if the hostility could end, please.

[John Cuthber]

OK Krash661, here's one of his ideas (They really don't count as "theorems" on account of the lack of evidence supporting them)

"Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects."

What might it be used for?

Incidentally, nobody really said they were holes or portals, so it's the other bit that I'm asking you to explain the use of.

What use is being made of the assertion that "it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects."?

 

Indeed, what use is being made of any of his ideas?

 

It's also wrong to say that I don't know anything about them. I know that they are not consistent with observed reality (See SamBridge's comments above)

[Phi for All]

Things that are wrong, imo (partial list):

 

1. Some people see mainstream scientific study as too difficult, and so they invent a fantasy where they step "outside the box" and use their "intuition" to seek the "Truth". It feels right to them only because they get to feel they are seeking answers without any of the responsibility of actual, rigorous study. They get to flit from topic to topic, only choosing what interests them most and cherry-picking those bits of data that support what they have chosen as "Truth". They make conclusions base on inadequate knowledge, building hypotheses on a foundation full of gaps and pockets of misunderstanding.

 

I feel this is wrong because it robs those people of the knowledge of all those who HAVE put the time into building "the box" into a set of explanations with the most supportive evidence. It's wrong because it dupes those people into thinking that mainstream science is wrong because it's hidebound and lacks their "intuitive grasp" on the subject. It's wrong because it makes them think their rejection of mainstream study is a form of skepticism, when it's really just a lack of focus, attention and appreciation for a seemingly plodding, time-consuming and often uninteresting methodology. It's wrong because it somehow makes them ignore the fact that the methodology works, it works very well, and it's the best process humans have ever come up with for explanations about the real world.

 

2. Littering.

 

3. People who claim X is wrong, but admit they don't really know much about X.

[krash661]

OK Krash661, here's one of his ideas (They really don't count as "theorems" on account of the lack of evidence supporting them)

"Black Holes are not holes, they are neither portals to other universes, it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects."

What might it be used for?

Incidentally, nobody really said they were holes or portals, so it's the other bit that I'm asking you to explain the use of.

What use is being made of the assertion that "it's counter intuitive to think that they are anything other than super solid objects."?

 

Indeed, what use is being made of any of his ideas?

 

It's also wrong to say that I don't know anything about them. I know that they are not consistent with observed reality (See SamBridge's comments above)

it appears there's a misunderstanding here.

i was referring to

srinivasa ramanujan theorems.

not what Popcorn Sutton think.

 

edit-

and the fact that i was given negative points for my comments proves that it's not know what

srinivasa ramanujan theorems are being used for.

i'm broad range in science.

everything is relative.

Edited June 13, 2013 by krash661

[John Cuthber]

it appears there's a misunderstanding here.

i was referring to

srinivasa ramanujan theorems.

not what Popcorn Sutton think.

 

edit-

and the fact that i was given negative points for my comments proves that it's not know what

srinivasa ramanujan theorems are being used for.

i'm broad range in science.

everything is relative.

Well, your earlier reply was short, ambiguous, and not as helpful as it might have been.

What relevance does a brilliant mathematician have to a thread full of dross?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

krash661

 

Unless you intend to directly tie in your comments about Ramanujan with the OP please do not continue with this offtopic branch within this thread.

 

Everyone else

 

Back to OP please