Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The universe is made of only one particle.

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:33:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The science community is full of deception and bull crap. Documentaries like 'The fabric of the Universe' are full of false and misleading information. The universe is much simpler than we have been told by the world's so called 'top physicists'. Brian Greene and other nincompoops like Higgs and Einstein have come to the conclusion that space bends. In this documentary we see demonstrations of space bending and billiard balls running around larger balls which supposedly bend space downwards. The problem with this hypothesis is that space should equally bend space upwards as well. Thus, moons and planets would just as likely be pushed away from larger bodies than being attracted to them.

Back to my theory - The universe contains only one particle which exists in 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. This creates positive, negative and neutral. Empty space is made of alternate left and right spin particles which are not attached and are spinning at the speed of light. Matter contains a no spin particle in the centre (black -hole) with left and right spin particles rotating around the outside. Sun's and planets push the left and right spin particles together to create matter (no spin particles plus heat and light).
Annnaxim
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:37:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:33:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The science community is full of deception and bull crap. Documentaries like 'The fabric of the Universe' are full of false and misleading information. The universe is much simpler than we have been told by the world's so called 'top physicists'. Brian Greene and other nincompoops like Higgs and Einstein have come to the conclusion that space bends. In this documentary we see demonstrations of space bending and billiard balls running around larger balls which supposedly bend space downwards. The problem with this hypothesis is that space should equally bend space upwards as well. Thus, moons and planets would just as likely be pushed away from larger bodies than being attracted to them.

Back to my theory - The universe contains only one particle which exists in 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. This creates positive, negative and neutral. Empty space is made of alternate left and right spin particles which are not attached and are spinning at the speed of light. Matter contains a no spin particle in the centre (black -hole) with left and right spin particles rotating around the outside. Sun's and planets push the left and right spin particles together to create matter (no spin particles plus heat and light).

As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yours is such an exceptional claim. What is your evidence?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:51:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:37:46 AM, Annnaxim wrote:

As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yours is such an exceptional claim. What is your evidence?

Logic is my evidence.

Logic dictates that space is just as likely to bend upwards as it is to bend downwards.
Note - I can disprove all the existing theories and show that all previous experiments were fraudulent and full of lies and deceptions.

My theory is pure logic and commonsense. Note - The documentary 'The fabric of the Universe' states that modern science has replaced commonsense. I am bringing back commonsense because all the new theories are severely lacking in commonsense and logic. This documentary tries to tell us that the universe is a hologram. Do you advocate this theory?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:51:02 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/31/2016 11:37:46 AM, Annnaxim wrote:

As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yours is such an exceptional claim. What is your evidence?

Logic is my evidence.

Logic dictates that space is just as likely to bend upwards as it is to bend downwards.
Note - I can disprove all the existing theories and show that all previous experiments were fraudulent and full of lies and deceptions.

My theory is pure logic and commonsense. Note - The documentary 'The fabric of the Universe' states that modern science has replaced commonsense. I am bringing back commonsense because all the new theories are severely lacking in commonsense and logic. This documentary tries to tell us that the universe is a hologram. Do you advocate this theory?

Your frames of reference are broken. Relativity says spacetime curves. It doesn't say in which direction because that concept doesn't make sense in the context. Up and down are spatial dimensions. They are part of what is being 'bent', not where it is being bent into.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:23:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:33:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The science community is full of deception and bull crap. Documentaries like 'The fabric of the Universe' are full of false and misleading information. The universe is much simpler than we have been told by the world's so called 'top physicists'. Brian Greene and other nincompoops like Higgs and Einstein have come to the conclusion that space bends. In this documentary we see demonstrations of space bending and billiard balls running around larger balls which supposedly bend space downwards. The problem with this hypothesis is that space should equally bend space upwards as well. Thus, moons and planets would just as likely be pushed away from larger bodies than being attracted to them.

Back to my theory - The universe contains only one particle which exists in 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. This creates positive, negative and neutral. Empty space is made of alternate left and right spin particles which are not attached and are spinning at the speed of light. Matter contains a no spin particle in the centre (black -hole) with left and right spin particles rotating around the outside. Sun's and planets push the left and right spin particles together to create matter (no spin particles plus heat and light).

Have you tried to get this published?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:55:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:33:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Your brain is made of only one particle; and I don't mean of one type.
The science community is full of deception and bull crap. Documentaries like 'The fabric of the Universe' are full of false and misleading information. The universe is much simpler than we have been told by the world's so called 'top physicists'. Brian Greene and other nincompoops like Higgs and Einstein have come to the conclusion that space bends. In this documentary we see demonstrations of space bending and billiard balls running around larger balls which supposedly bend space downwards. The problem with this hypothesis is that space should equally bend space upwards as well. Thus, moons and planets would just as likely be pushed away from larger bodies than being attracted to them.

Ok, seriously this time; how old are you? Space doesn't bend "downwards", "downwards" is only used as an analogy for people like you, it doesn't mean that space is actually being pulled "down".
Back to my theory - The universe contains only one particle which exists in 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. This creates positive, negative and neutral. Empty space is made of alternate left and right spin particles which are not attached and are spinning at the speed of light. Matter contains a no spin particle in the centre (black -hole) with left and right spin particles rotating around the outside. Sun's and planets push the left and right spin particles together to create matter (no spin particles plus heat and light).

Um... evidence?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 1:27:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:02:45 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

Your frames of reference are broken. Relativity says spacetime curves. It doesn't say in which direction because that concept doesn't make sense in the context. Up and down are spatial dimensions. They are part of what is being 'bent', not where it is being bent into.
You can't have your cake and eat it too!
If space/times curves it has to curve in a particular direction. So which direction does it curve?
1. Please don't say that it doesn't curve in any particular direction because you are entering into illogical areas of nonsense which the current science is based.
2. Please don't say it is beyond my understanding that space curves.
3. Please don't say that the curvature of space is not understandable by the meager human brain. (This is just a form of hiding from reality)
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 1:32:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 5:55:09 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Ok, seriously this time; how old are you? Space doesn't bend "downwards", "downwards" is only used as an analogy for people like you, it doesn't mean that space is actually being pulled "down".

The documentary uses a billiard table which is definitely bent in a downwards direction. Brian Greene is serious when he says that space bends downwards on several occasions. Thus, if space can bend up, then why didn't the billiard table bend up as well?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 11:45:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 9:06:27 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
The universe is made of only one particle.

Sorry guys, but what load of horseshit is that?

Soooorrrrry nincompoop! But that's how it is. It doesn't matter that you don't like it or it doesn't fit your agendas. lol!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 1:32:14 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/31/2016 5:55:09 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Ok, seriously this time; how old are you? Space doesn't bend "downwards", "downwards" is only used as an analogy for people like you, it doesn't mean that space is actually being pulled "down".

The documentary uses a billiard table which is definitely bent in a downwards direction. Brian Greene is serious when he says that space bends downwards on several occasions. Thus, if space can bend up, then why didn't the billiard table bend up as well?

Sorry, bud, but I'm the physicist here; I know what I'm talking about. Relativity does not state that space bends downwards; that is just a simplified analogy for thick-heads like you, so stop quoting that stupid pop-sci documentary. Space bends on a dimension where only one direction emerges from the point of neutrality, not two; or in other words, there isn't any "down" or "up", there's just "more".
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 10:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 4:33:41 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Sorry, bud, but I'm the physicist here; I know what I'm talking about. Relativity does not state that space bends downwards; that is just a simplified analogy for thick-heads like you, so stop quoting that stupid pop-sci documentary. Space bends on a dimension where only one direction emerges from the point of neutrality, not two; or in other words, there isn't any "down" or "up", there's just "more".

Oh, so your a real physicist nincompoop. That's reassuring! lol!

So, physicist nincompoop, which direction does space bend?

Your answer - "more" lololololololololololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Annnaxim
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 8:52:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:51:02 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 10/31/2016 11:37:46 AM, Annnaxim wrote:

As Carl Sagan once said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yours is such an exceptional claim. What is your evidence?

Logic is my evidence.
Really?

Logic dictates that space is just as likely to bend upwards as it is to bend downwards.
Your logic fails you in Line 1: there is no up or down in space.

Note - I can disprove all the existing theories and show that all previous experiments were fraudulent and full of lies and deceptions.

Well then.... put pen to paper -- er -- fingers to keyboard, and let us see your logic.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 1:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 8:52:25 AM, Annnaxim wrote:


Logic dictates that space is just as likely to bend upwards as it is to bend downwards.
Your logic fails you in Line 1: there is no up or down in space.

Correct! Thus, Brian Greene, Einstein and others were all wrong in assuming that space could bend. Logic dictates that you can't bend nothing. The science community has long since agreed that space is empty - (Michelson/Morley experiment etc.) Thus, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Note - I can disprove all the existing theories and show that all previous experiments were fraudulent and full of lies and deceptions.

Well then.... put pen to paper -- er -- fingers to keyboard, and let us see your logic.

Not necessary, the work has already been done for me. https://www.newscientist.com...
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 4:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 10:40:01 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/2/2016 4:33:41 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Sorry, bud, but I'm the physicist here; I know what I'm talking about. Relativity does not state that space bends downwards; that is just a simplified analogy for thick-heads like you, so stop quoting that stupid pop-sci documentary. Space bends on a dimension where only one direction emerges from the point of neutrality, not two; or in other words, there isn't any "down" or "up", there's just "more".

Oh, so your a real physicist nincompoop. That's reassuring! lol!

So, physicist nincompoop, which direction does space bend?

Your answer - "more" lololololololololololo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're twelve years old, aren't you? Just because physics is too complicated for your pee-sized brain to understand (heck, you're so goddamn asinine that you actually suppose space must bend in a certain "direction"), it doesn't mean that it doesn't work; heck, I understood these things when I was only fifteen, no older.

You've refuted nothing with your idiotic response.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:15:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 4:27:20 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You're twelve years old, aren't you? Just because physics is too complicated for your pee-sized brain to understand (heck, you're so goddamn asinine that you actually suppose space must bend in a certain "direction"), it doesn't mean that it doesn't work; heck, I understood these things when I was only fifteen, no older.

You've refuted nothing with your idiotic response.

Sorry master! I will snatch that pebble from your hand and walk out that gate a fully fledged blind idiot like you one day! lol!

The sad reality of your life -
It only proves that you was a good little boy who nodded his head every time his teacher spoke and never, ever disagreed with anything. Eventually, you became infatuated with your own success in being able to accept total nonsense. Thus, getting big rewards for not thinking made you eventually decide that thinking was dangerous and got you into trouble, so you never bothered to venture beyond the consensus ever again.

So, when you was only fifteen you understood that you CAN bend nothing. Good boy! Your teacher must have really liked you for agreeing with such nonsense. lol!

I can see a career for you in the public service as a head nodding idiot! lol!
Annnaxim
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:43:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 11:45:13 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:06:27 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
The universe is made of only one particle.

Sorry guys, but what load of horseshit is that?

Soooorrrrry nincompoop! But that's how it is. It doesn't matter that you don't like it or it doesn't fit your agendas. lol!
Oh dear...

It doesn't have to fit my likes or dislikes, However a theory should fit with observations.
https://www.youtube.com...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:45:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 8:43:46 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 11/1/2016 11:45:13 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:06:27 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
The universe is made of only one particle.

Sorry guys, but what load of horseshit is that?

Soooorrrrry nincompoop! But that's how it is. It doesn't matter that you don't like it or it doesn't fit your agendas. lol!
Oh dear...

It doesn't have to fit my likes or dislikes, However a theory should fit with observations.
https://www.youtube.com...

My theory is based on observations. I have observed that the science community is full of frauds and charlatans. Richard Feynman believes that gravity pulls, space is empty, space bends and that photons travel as virtual particles. All nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com...
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:22:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:15:22 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/3/2016 4:27:20 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You're twelve years old, aren't you? Just because physics is too complicated for your pee-sized brain to understand (heck, you're so goddamn asinine that you actually suppose space must bend in a certain "direction"), it doesn't mean that it doesn't work; heck, I understood these things when I was only fifteen, no older.

You've refuted nothing with your idiotic response.

Sorry master! I will snatch that pebble from your hand and walk out that gate a fully fledged blind idiot like you one day! lol!

The sad reality of your life -
It only proves that you was a good little boy who nodded his head every time his teacher spoke and never, ever disagreed with anything. Eventually, you became infatuated with your own success in being able to accept total nonsense. Thus, getting big rewards for not thinking made you eventually decide that thinking was dangerous and got you into trouble, so you never bothered to venture beyond the consensus ever again.

So, when you was only fifteen you understood that you CAN bend nothing. Good boy! Your teacher must have really liked you for agreeing with such nonsense. lol!

I can see a career for you in the public service as a head nodding idiot! lol!

Wow; you're a presumptive idiot. Presented any rebuttal? No? Then why don't you just admit you're wrong? Unlike you, I've tested the claims made by modern physics, and time after time; they are perfectly concordant with the sientific consensus. I'm not blindly accepting anything here, buddy; you're just blindly denying it.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 8:27:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:45:05 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/4/2016 8:43:46 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 11/1/2016 11:45:13 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/1/2016 9:06:27 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
The universe is made of only one particle.

Sorry guys, but what load of horseshit is that?

Soooorrrrry nincompoop! But that's how it is. It doesn't matter that you don't like it or it doesn't fit your agendas. lol!
Oh dear...

It doesn't have to fit my likes or dislikes, However a theory should fit with observations.
https://www.youtube.com...

My theory is based on observations.
F*cking liar. You haven't presented a single god-forsaken observation to support your argument; so don't pretend your "theory" is scientific. It's a refuted hypothesis, a hypothesis at best; no more.
I have observed that the science community is full of frauds and charlatans. Richard Feynman believes that gravity pulls, space is empty, space bends and that photons travel as virtual particles. All nonsense.
You clearly do not know what even one of those claims mean.

https://www.youtube.com...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 2:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 8:27:50 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You clearly do not know what even one of those claims mean.

https://www.youtube.com...

Richard Feynman has admitted on several occasions that even he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just regurgitating what other people have said previously. Its the blind following the blind.

ROA 30 The complexity trap

https://www.youtube.com...

Thus, the universe is simple, not complex. The universe IS made of only one particle because the universe always does things in the simplest manner possible. KISS.
Thus, hundreds of subatomic particles are only necessary to keep thousands of nincompoop scientists employed in finding more non-existent sub-atomic particles.

Note - All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Positive- negative and neutral.
Thus, my theory is correct and yours is incorrect! lol!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 3:49:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 2:01:18 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/8/2016 8:27:50 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

You clearly do not know what even one of those claims mean.

https://www.youtube.com...

Richard Feynman has admitted on several occasions that even he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just regurgitating what other people have said previously. Its the blind following the blind.

I'm sorry, you'll need to quote him and provide a source for me to take you seriously; given that I know what I'm talking about.
ROA 30 The complexity trap

https://www.youtube.com...

Thus, the universe is simple, not complex.
This "RoA" thing presents no proper evidence for its claims; and neither have you. You seem to blindly and religiously accept the "RoA" to be factual, even though there is no reasoning behind it.
The universe IS made of only one particle because the universe always does things in the simplest manner possible. KISS.
Evidence?
Thus, hundreds of subatomic particles are only necessary to keep thousands of nincompoop scientists employed in finding more non-existent sub-atomic particles.

Note - All sub-atomic particles come in groups of 3. Positive- negative and neutral.
Thus, my theory is correct and yours is incorrect! lol!

Presumptive, malformed and incorrect; that is the only way I can describe your failed hypothesis. Particles never come in groups of positive-negative-neutral, the only such trio you may propose behaves this way is the Z+ Z- W0 trio, but their spin is not positive-negative-neutral, as the W0 particle has a positive spin of 1.

Even if your reasoning was valid, your conclusion would still be incorrect due to it being based off a false assumption.

To conclude, you are nothing more than a sheep; looking for some reason to believe bed-time-story level nonsense because the actual physics is too hard for you. (Even with that being said, it's not that hard to learn; you must be incredibly stupid to not even be able to grasp simple quantum physics; and yes, it is simple.)
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:33:17 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The science community is full of deception and bull crap. Documentaries like 'The fabric of the Universe' are full of false and misleading information. The universe is much simpler than we have been told by the world's so called 'top physicists'. Brian Greene and other nincompoops like Higgs and Einstein have come to the conclusion that space bends. In this documentary we see demonstrations of space bending and billiard balls running around larger balls which supposedly bend space downwards. The problem with this hypothesis is that space should equally bend space upwards as well. Thus, moons and planets would just as likely be pushed away from larger bodies than being attracted to them.

Back to my theory - The universe contains only one particle which exists in 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. This creates positive, negative and neutral. Empty space is made of alternate left and right spin particles which are not attached and are spinning at the speed of light. Matter contains a no spin particle in the centre (black -hole) with left and right spin particles rotating around the outside. Sun's and planets push the left and right spin particles together to create matter (no spin particles plus heat and light).

I've been considering a similar theory. I guess we are to the point that a lot of people are. Pretty cool. I would assume at some point, subatomic particles would be shown to be made of the same something reacting in different ways.

I'm just going to point out quick, that things that are pushed away, (most of the universe apparently) would naturally not be found by the things they are being pushed away from. And the things that aren't would naturally remain. Would you care to elaborate on what you meant there?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 3:13:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/8/2016 5:11:34 PM, Quadrunner wrote:

I'm just going to point out quick, that things that are pushed away, (most of the universe apparently) would naturally not be found by the things they are being pushed away from. And the things that aren't would naturally remain. Would you care to elaborate on what you meant there?

Well, after you explain what you mean. Then, I will explain what I mean.

Are you referring to my theory that there is no pull or attraction and that there is only pushing and falling?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 12:13:01 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 3:49:14 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Presumptive, malformed and incorrect; that is the only way I can describe your failed hypothesis. Particles never come in groups of positive-negative-neutral, the only such trio you may propose behaves this way is the Z+ Z- W0 trio, but their spin is not positive-negative-neutral, as the W0 particle has a positive spin of 1.

Even if your reasoning was valid, your conclusion would still be incorrect due to it being based off a false assumption.

To conclude, you are nothing more than a sheep; looking for some reason to believe bed-time-story level nonsense because the actual physics is too hard for you. (Even with that being said, it's not that hard to learn; you must be incredibly stupid to not even be able to grasp simple quantum physics; and yes, it is simple.)

1. If you can find any sub-atomic particles that are not either positive, negative or neutral let me know what they are? lol!

2. You are suffering from clever monkey disease which means you think you know something because you can regurgitate previous garbage.

3. Scientists need the universe to be complicated so that they can justify their existence. If the universe turns out to be simple, then, this must be concealed from the public at all costs because it will mean loss of integrity, income and status. Thus, the big lie must be maintained at all costs.

4. Richard Feynman, who died of cancer had no idea about how the universe works. This is so, because he didn't understand the nature of disease and how to prevent it. His wife died of tuberculosis at the age of 25. Tuberculosis is just a condition brought on by dairy products. If you avoid eating and drinking dairy products you can avoid most disease and cancers. He also exposed himself to atomic bomb radiation which means he doesn't understand the physics of radiation as well. Thus, we can see that Richard Feynman was ignorant of many aspects of the universe and how it works. The evidence of this is in the premature death of both himself and his wife.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:26:29 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 12:13:01 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/8/2016 3:49:14 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Presumptive, malformed and incorrect; that is the only way I can describe your failed hypothesis. Particles never come in groups of positive-negative-neutral, the only such trio you may propose behaves this way is the Z+ Z- W0 trio, but their spin is not positive-negative-neutral, as the W0 particle has a positive spin of 1.

Even if your reasoning was valid, your conclusion would still be incorrect due to it being based off a false assumption.

To conclude, you are nothing more than a sheep; looking for some reason to believe bed-time-story level nonsense because the actual physics is too hard for you. (Even with that being said, it's not that hard to learn; you must be incredibly stupid to not even be able to grasp simple quantum physics; and yes, it is simple.)

1. If you can find any sub-atomic particles that are not either positive, negative or neutral let me know what they are? lol!

Well, they're all positive, negative and neutral; they just don't come in trios.
2. You are suffering from clever monkey disease which means you think you know something because you can regurgitate previous garbage.

Listen here, I've actually studied this myself, in practice; I've worked at a LHC, and have set up the equipment myself, so I'm not just telling you what I've heard from others.
3. Scientists need the universe to be complicated so that they can justify their existence. If the universe turns out to be simple, then, this must be concealed from the public at all costs because it will mean loss of integrity, income and status. Thus, the big lie must be maintained at all costs.

Listen bud, the universe isn't that complicated to begin with; you can go and learn this right now. I mean, the existence of scientists has nothing to do with the complexity of the universe; as the universe is either complex, or it is not, depending only on the universe itself; so your "Scientists need the universe to be complicated." argument falls apart. Either present proper evidence without regarding scientists themselves, or stop asserting nonsense.
4. Richard Feynman, who died of cancer had no idea about how the universe works. This is so, because he didn't understand the nature of disease and how to prevent it. His wife died of tuberculosis at the age of 25. Tuberculosis is just a condition brought on by dairy products. If you avoid eating and drinking dairy products you can avoid most disease and cancers. He also exposed himself to atomic bomb radiation which means he doesn't understand the physics of radiation as well. Thus, we can see that Richard Feynman was ignorant of many aspects of the universe and how it works. The evidence of this is in the premature death of both himself and his wife.

Your denial of the existence of pathogens is irrelevant; let's not change subject.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 1:46:26 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:26:29 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Listen bud, the universe isn't that complicated to begin with; you can go and learn this right now. I mean, the existence of scientists has nothing to do with the complexity of the universe; as the universe is either complex, or it is not, depending only on the universe itself; so your "Scientists need the universe to be complicated." argument falls apart. Either present proper evidence without regarding scientists themselves, or stop asserting nonsense.

Well, what I mean is that, if the universe was a simple place, then, scientists would complicate it, so as to make it indecipherable to the common person. This is just the power game - religious leaders use it, kings use it, dictators use it and scientists use it. In order to create a reason for being in a position of power needs the illusion of secret knowledge and mystical powers which mere morals do not possess. Thus, scientists use indecipherable symbols to confuse people into thinking that they have a secret knowledge. But, alas, the internet came along which has exposed this centuries old trickery. Thus, the game is over and the emperor wears no clothes!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 9:52:48 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 1:46:26 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:26:29 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:


Listen bud, the universe isn't that complicated to begin with; you can go and learn this right now. I mean, the existence of scientists has nothing to do with the complexity of the universe; as the universe is either complex, or it is not, depending only on the universe itself; so your "Scientists need the universe to be complicated." argument falls apart. Either present proper evidence without regarding scientists themselves, or stop asserting nonsense.

Well, what I mean is that, if the universe was a simple place, then, scientists would complicate it, so as to make it indecipherable to the common person.
Keyword: IF. You present no evidence to suggest it is.
This is just the power game - religious leaders use it, kings use it, dictators use it and scientists use it. In order to create a reason for being in a position of power needs the illusion of secret knowledge and mystical powers which mere morals do not possess. Thus, scientists use indecipherable symbols to confuse people into thinking that they have a secret knowledge. But, alas, the internet came along which has exposed this centuries old trickery. Thus, the game is over and the emperor wears no clothes!

Even though you can go ahead and learn what those symbols mean; I mean, it isn't exactly difficult.

Oh, and trust me; your hypothesis would require EVEN MORE complications than the physics we know today, as no matter how simple this thesis is in concept, in practice it would need rather complex rules to allow it to work the way it does.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2016 4:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/11/2016 9:52:48 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Oh, and trust me; your hypothesis would require EVEN MORE complications than the physics we know today, as no matter how simple this thesis is in concept, in practice it would need rather complex rules to allow it to work the way it does.

How do you write an equation for a dimensional down shift factor of one?
gilkai
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 12:11:05 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/1/2016 9:06:27 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
The universe is made of only one particle.

Sorry guys, but what load of horseshit is that?

At least, OP is thinking outside of the box. Instead of refuting, maybe we should be open-minded to his theory. We can then dismiss everything or not, but thinking a bit before posting this question wouldn't hurt.