Paul Almond wrote: This means that people who think they can be frozen and come back to life in the future have all been misplaced, and this emotiquation: = indicates how the cryonics company is still looking for its customers.

Sorry, I have to correct you here. = is the 3rd Normal Form expression of the Ickes-Lron emotiquation that expresses the relationship between time, energy and mass - specifically, the total energy expended by a 3-legged Schrodinger's cat trying to bury one decagram of Dark Shit on a marble floor in one second (adjusted universal sidereal second).

The cryonics emotiquation you're looking for is more properly expressed as
lim (1,N-1)( ( / (1/ln( ) ) ) for all N in {Walt Disney's public hair}

For those interested, additional proof of this theory is available here.

twistor59 wrote:So that's where people have been going wrong all these years....

Phooey, this is nothing! Finland's very own Jukka Savorinen (who got banned from the bygone RDF BTW so he's not just a local celebrity) has managed to recreate modern physcis without even acheiving a coherent paragraph of text
http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2

The latest triumph of One Simple Principle is predicting the excessive heating of Enceladus, in case you need more proof

And obviously if this doesn't convince there's always this (and more!) from the relatively close vicinity of where that came from. I'd be especially inteterested in hearing Mr. Borgais' analysis of it

Wow, most of these replies are just junk. I feel very sorry for people who feel they need to degrade others to make them selves feel better.

Anyways, as far as logic, reason, math, and the scientific method are concerned, look at the photo of atoms on freeornottobe.org under "The Genesis of Relativity" or "How We Exist" and consider the orbital patterns (S,P,D,F) known to exist. Then consider where matter came from and how matter first formed. Then try to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. While you're at it, figure out what consciousness essentially is, and where that came from. And after all, what exactly caused matter to form in the first place? What exactly is that thing in the center of our galaxy which is so massive stars whip past it but we cannot see it? Why is the light bent more by gravitational lensing around the galaxies in the bullet cluster and much less by the majority of visible mass which is in the space between galaxy clusters? Is that not the massive centers of the galaxies, which are really dense matter, but dark black, curving that light? And what about the flat rotation curve of galaxies? Where exactly is all that dark energy?

Sure, I still need to do the math, but Myron Evans already figured out the math of magnetic dipoles and electric charge. I just need to learn them and incorporate them like I have with all other theories before me. The only four points of my theory which are unique are the First Event, the Nature of Dark Matter, the Origin of God and thought, and what happens after the rapture.

(I almost don't even want to respond to someone named: hackenslash, but I will respond to anything productive.)
hackenslash said: "black holes haven't actually been discovered, they have been inferred, which is not the same thing."

I even have on my computer the video compiled of stars orbiting a massive but invisible object in the central light-year of our galaxy. What do you want to call that if not a Black Hole? It is black, and it is very massive, this we know. Do you want to give that a different name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Would it not?

"So this isn't actually a peer-reviewed journal, it's the pseudo-scientific blog of some anonymous guy on the internet?"
Yeah, it is not peer reviewed, unless you feel you are worthy to be called my peers. I think we are all created equally in the image of the mind of God. Do you even believe in God? And why, or why not? I found God through logical deduction. If God created all physical existence, then in Gods image cannot refer to our physical bodies, but only to how our minds work.

"Tell us all what a 'spinning field of momentum' is. In fact, please define 'spin' in the context you are employing it here"
Spin is a simple word that should not need definition, but it is movement around a point. In general, that point is not usually stationary, such as with spiral paths of motion. Momentum is inertia, or velocity times mass. Will that do? I thought these things were obvious enough to not require definition or further explanation.

--You must see the images and read the entire theory (which is only 22pgs anyways) to understand it. Without doing so you are not fit to provide a review.---
"mythology into science" you say? How many times do we need to discover that mythical cities actually existed before we learn that every myth and legend came from some original truth? The point of my life is to understand how and why we exist, by finding the real truth. Whether my theory is true or not, is a matter I cannot determine alone. History proves this.

"Well, the problem there is that, if it agrees with major accepted theories, it doesn't agree with any religions. Furthermore, if you think it can answer 'why' questions, it isn't science." I laugh at this one. It describes the common thread, the fundamental makeup of reality, that which unites everything.

If your mind is closed, you cannot fit this in.

You say science cannot explain why things are? Have you ever had a science class? Discovering why things are is kind of the strongest reason why science has been developed.

"so some anonymous guy on the internet has the answers, while one of the world's leading astrophysicists is somehow wrong?"
Yup. The reason is Dogma. Independent study encourages comprehension, while mainstream education involves more memorization than understanding.

"The fact of the matter is that black holes are NOT dark matter. They are two very different things. If your claim to have studied 'theories of everything' (which ones, by the way) had any basis in reality, you'd know this."

---You give me one good reason why "Black Holes" are not the same as "Dark Matter".---

"Emits tremendous amounts of gamma rays, eh? Invisible, eh? What's wrong with this picture? If it's emitting tremendous amounts of gamma rays, it isn't invisible, is it?"
Earth to hackenslash, Human-Beings cannot see gamma rays. We use special telescopes to see them, and there are quite a lot of gamma rays coming from galactic nuclei and those massive dark spots (which are apparently not called Black Holes according to you).
But to be fair, Neil DeGrass Tyson said pretty much the same to me by email, and he was on that Bullet Cluster video. It just seems obvious to me that those dark massive spots in the middle of those galaxies, the ones bending all that light, are Dark, and they are really massive, so lets call them Dark Matter, or Black Holes. What else would you designate as Dark Matter or Black Holes? Perhaps those particles that only exist for fractions of a second (everything but Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons in stable atoms)?

Here is a good response (the only one on this forum yet): "Because Dark Matter neither interacts with, nor emits, any kind of electromagnetic energy, while black holes..."
Scientists figure the matter we cannot see, which is making the stars move as they do, must not be interacting with, or emitting any of the light waves we can see, either with our eyes, or with computers (which see radio waves, micro waves, infra red, ultra violet, gamma rays, etc.).
Do you know how hard it was to figure out how to make frequencies that high? Clearly the dark masses at every galactic nuclei are a different form of matter than normal, with much higher energy density, which do emit strong amounts of gamma rays because those have the escape velocity, and it is likely that they emit lots more energy in even higher frequencies which we cannot yet see.
If Dark Matter is specially interlinked Neutrons, and if Neutrons are an Electron and Proton in a special, tight, binary orbit, if particles are really just pressure in motion, if those Neutrons are only linked into dark matter during supernovas which strongly expand (and cool), then compress the matter, than we can reproduce this effect, create Dark Matter and/or Black Holes in the lab. To do this we would super cool to 0.000001 Kelvin as MIT did, then compress the BE Condensate into a critical mass just like an atom bombs first stage explosive shell does to the core. This black hole/dark matter mass would divide rapidly if normal matter was permitted to attract to it, and it would dissipate rapidly as well, causing much radiation.

Does anyone have any intelligent arguments? Please.

harleyborgais wrote:Does anyone have any intelligent arguments? Please.

Hey, that's my line!

harleyborgais wrote:

Hackenslash wrote:"The fact of the matter is that black holes are NOT dark matter. They are two very different things. If your claim to have studied 'theories of everything' (which ones, by the way) had any basis in reality, you'd know this."

---You give me one good reason why "Black Holes" are not the same as "Dark Matter".---

My quote fix. sigh. (You can't figure out what labelled buttons mean and yet you figured out the universe WITHOUT EQUATIONS!!)
I've only graduated recently from the Wikipedia College and Local Library U, and I can tell you that black holes are the result of normal matter (a supermassive star) collapsing on itself due to the mass of the star ?curving space? I have it from extremely reliable sources such as AIG that Dark Matter is a fudge to explain the missing mass of the universe. To my knowledge Dark Matter is only slightly better defined (it has a number) than the entity commonly called "God".

edit: in italics

Hopefully this works...
Here is a photo of atoms (from Science and Mechanics -Jan. 1964 -from the Nemescope -US Patent #3,129,353)...

Here are some corresponding ancient, sacred geometric figures (Note the Flower and Egg of Life, and the pattern at the bottom matching the two outer shell configurations from the photo)...

There is more in "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org

harleyborgais wrote:Hopefully this works...

If your aim was for me to fall off my chair, then it did. Otherwise... no such luck.

Finally, an intelligent response...
By sennekuyl:
"you figured out the universe WITHOUT EQUATIONS!!)"
The reason Pi is a never ending number with no pattern is because there is always an indivisible remainder after every math operation when you try to compute the area between a curve and a line. Pi is the ratio between the Circumference and Diameter of circle. Because of this, you can only use ratios, not exact calculations, to comprehend the relationships between straight-line forces like attraction and repulsion, and the curved forces like centripetal force, centrifugal force, spin, etc. All growth and decay rates are curved functions over time (the straight line). This is why Geometry is more useful for understanding reality than math, and why the most sacred and ancient geometric figures, exactly model physical atoms and the lattice structures which give matter form.

"black holes are the result of normal matter (a supermassive star) collapsing on itself due to the mass of the star ?curving space?"
Is that a question or a statement?
Sure, black holes are normal matter collapsed, that is what I described more specifically above.

"I have it from extremely reliable sources such as AIG that Dark Matter is a fudge to explain the missing mass of the universe."
I agree. But the fact is that there IS matter we cannot see, creating strong gravity fields, bending light, making stars move faster, etc. It is matter, it is dark, and there is more of IT, then of visible matter. This is all factual. Why not call it dark matter? The point is we cant see it.

"To my knowledge Dark Matter is only slightly better defined (it has a number) than the entity commonly called "God"."
The First Event is explained in "The Genesis of Relativity" and "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org. It is a reaction of equal and opposite forces (or pressure in motion), at 90-degrees, which caused spin, which started a chain reaction, which led to all we see, according to the pattern called the Flower of Life, as seen in the photo of atoms. Consciousness came before matter, logically (once you understand what consciousness essentially is), and so God was the first consciousness, and thought the same as we do, because we are created equally in the image of Gods mind.

"Jukka Savorinen ...has managed to recreate modern physcis without even acheiving a coherent paragraph of text "
http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2

"The latest triumph of One Simple Principle is predicting the excessive heating of Enceladus, in case you need more proof "

"there's always this (and more!)...I'd be especially inteterested in hearing Mr. Borgais' analysis of it "
The One Simple Principle is as you say, very poor in grammar. It is too hard to read and respect. It seems to be an interpretation. I only looked briefly.
The heating of Enceladus is not important to me because it does not seem like an important factor in progressive development of our reality.
The Geometrodynamics is very technical with all that jargon. I try to avoid such field-specific terms, but sometimes it is still needed.
Probably the only way I am going to tackle that theory is if someone shows me something special about it.
That technical nature is why I did not delve far into Garrett Lisi's E8 model. Suffice to say it is a beautiful model of the possible forms of matter. That is not a theory of everything, but a part of one.

I'm sorry Harley but how does "looks a bit like some of these drawings" amount to "I know the structure, meaning and purpose of the cosmos."?

Bribase said:

I'm sorry Harley but how does "looks a bit like some of these drawings" amount to "I know the structure, meaning and purpose of the cosmos."?

First, you are misquoting. That makes you look very foolish.

Second, it will take 22pgs of reading to understand that. Is that too much for you, to read 22 pages in order to understand how and why you and everything exists? It seems to me like a gift from God. And if it wasn't for God, I probably would not have succeeded in this task. The number of amazing 'coincidences' which led to me connecting all these pieces was astonishing to me.

These concepts can only be understood by open minds, and through a combination of imagery, math, and words. In order for anyone to understand it (without prior physics knowledge), I really need a 3D animation. That could also compute the math needed to make more predictions, and to create new technologies.

Most of this knowledge has been known and rediscovered countless times since the ancient Egyptians (or even earlier). Try to catch up.

I would really like it if the moderator could delete the comments that are totally useless. That would be for the best.

harleyborgais wrote:I would really like it if the moderator could delete the comments that are totally useless. That would be for the best.

But we like having you here.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe in one of the gods, but you have no faith in him/her/it, you must test his/her/it's existance?

"In 1995, Pat Packard built a replica of Steve Wittman’s first airplane, the Hardly Abelson. Steve built the original in 1923, while he was still in high school. The airplane was powered by a 61 cu. in. Harley Davidson V-twin motorcycle engine with a 52-inch propeller that was driven through a chain drive reduction unit. The name “Hardly Abelson” was derived from the engine’s inability to do more than propel Steve on a few crow hops across a cow pasture."(http://museum.eaa.org/collection/aircra ... belson.asp)
"Hardly Abelson", that is funny. I have not heard that one before. But no one has ever figured out where God came from as far as I have seen, but me. I have combined all of the theories before me into one logical progression from start to finish.

I am sorry that "How We Exist" is still a very rough draft. It will be completed in steps. Spell check is done, now proof read, then improved images, and plenty of references.

harleyborgais wrote:"In 1995, Pat Packard built a replica of Steve Wittman’s first airplane, the Hardly Abelson. Steve built the original in 1923, while he was still in high school. The airplane was powered by a 61 cu. in. Harley Davidson V-twin motorcycle engine with a 52-inch propeller that was driven through a chain drive reduction unit. The name “Hardly Abelson” was derived from the engine’s inability to do more than propel Steve on a few crow hops across a cow pasture."(http://museum.eaa.org/collection/aircra ... belson.asp)
"Hardly Abelson", that is funny. I have not heard that one before. But no one has ever figured out where God came from as far as I have seen, but me. I have combined all of the theories before me into one logical progression from start to finish.

I am sorry that "How We Exist" is still a very rough draft. It will be completed in steps. Spell check is done, now proof read, then improved images, and plenty of references.

Which god did you discover, by the way? Was it Loki?

harleyborgais wrote:The One Simple Principle is as you say, very poor in grammar. It is too hard to read and respect. It seems to be an interpretation. I only looked briefly.

I wasn't asking your opinion on One Simple Principle at all tho. Pretty much everybody knows it's woobery, apart from the author himself.

The heating of Enceladus is not important to me because it does not seem like an important factor in progressive development of our reality.

It is important to however to OSP by the way of being claimed as evidence for it. Similarly, you will want to present empirical evidence and predictions supporting your theory. Start with the best observations that agree with your theory that aren't explained by the competing theories and work your way on from there.

The Geometrodynamics is very technical with all that jargon. I try to avoid such field-specific terms, but sometimes it is still needed.
Probably the only way I am going to tackle that theory is if someone shows me something special about it.

Dr. Pitkänen has provided numerous examples on his pages showing why TGd is the correct theory of everything. That should be quite special enough. Obviously, I'll have to accept that you can't be bothered to take a serious look at it but I'm sure you also understand that this leaves me confused as to why I should be more convinced of the explanative powers of your theory than I am of TGd -- both claim to be "it" after all and they don't seem to agree on all points

Oh and the triangle next to the Quote button is called the Report button. You can use it to report any posts you don't think are on topic or are otherwise against the FUA (which, I'm sure, you have at least cursorily perused) to moderators. HTH.

harleyborgais wrote:Finally, an intelligent response...

Oh dear. If the others here aren't giving you much time of day, it isn't because I'm the most intelligent person here. Rather, you have got bad enough logic that even I can see through it.

By sennekuyl:

It isn't difficult. There is a button called Quote; press it on the post you wish to reply to and it inserts automagically into your reply box

Code: Select all

[quote]<post you respond to here>[/quote]


and it put it in these nice boxes. If you want to give credit where due, put an equal sign inside the first set of quote boxes, after the word quote. Like this

Code: Select all

[quote="sennekuyl"]says shit[/quote]


and you get this really nice box:

Code: Select all

[quote="harleyborgais"]Finally, an intelligent response...[/quote]


becomes

harleyborgais wrote:Finally, an intelligent response...

There are even buttons to preview what you have said. (Psst: it is at the bottom of the reply box)
Here is this entire post so you can see how it works.

Code: Select all

[quote="harleyborgais";p="754245"]Finally, an intelligent response...[/quote]
Oh dear. If the others here aren't giving you much time of day, it isn't because I'm the most intelligent person here. Rather, you have got bad enough logic that even I can see through it.
[quote]By sennekuyl:[/quote]
It isn't difficult. There is a button called Quote; press it on the post you wish to reply to and it inserts [i]automagically into your reply box[/i]
[code]
[quote]<post you respond to here>[/quote]
[/code]
and it put it in these nice boxes. If you want to give credit where due, put an equal sign inside the first set of quote boxes, after the word quote. Like this
[code]
[quote="sennekuyl"]says shit[/quote]
[/code]
and you get this really nice box:
[code]
[quote="harleyborgais"]Finally, an intelligent response...[/quote]
[/code]
becomes
[quote="harleyborgais";p="754245"]Finally, an intelligent response...[/quote]
There are even buttons to preview what you have said. (Psst: it is at the bottom of the reply box)
Here is this entire post so you can see how it works.
[code]
Oh not again :mad:
[/code]
Yeah, me again :roll:
[quote="sennekuyl";p="754245"]"you figured out the universe WITHOUT EQUATIONS!!)" [/quote]
[quote="harleyborgais";p="754245"]The reason Pi is a never ending number with no pattern is because there is always an indivisible remainder after every math operation when you try to compute the area between a curve and a line.  Pi is the ratio between the Circumference and Diameter of circle.  Because of this, you can only use ratios, not exact calculations, to comprehend the relationships between straight-line forces like attraction and repulsion, and the curved forces like centripetal force, centrifugal force, spin, etc. All growth and decay rates are curved functions over time (the straight line).  This is why Geometry is more useful for understanding reality than math, and why the most sacred and ancient geometric figures, exactly model physical atoms and the lattice structures which give matter form.[/quote]
But geometry is a subset of maths. Nice shapes is good and all, but it/they tells us nothing without being measured and correlated.
[quote="sennekuyl";p="754245"]"black holes are the result of normal matter (a supermassive star) collapsing on itself due to the mass of the star ?curving space?"[/quote]
[quote]Is that a question or a statement?
Sure, black holes are normal matter collapsed, that is what I described more specifically above.[/quote]
I was acknowledging my statement was fuzzy.
[quote]
[quote]
"I have it from extremely reliable sources such as AIG that Dark Matter is a fudge to explain the missing mass of the universe."[/quote]
I agree.  But the fact is that there IS matter we cannot see, creating strong gravity fields, bending light, making stars move faster, etc.   It is matter, it is dark, and there is more of IT, then of visible matter.  This is all factual.  Why not call it dark matter?  The point is we cant see it.[/quote]

I'll spell it out. Answers In Genesis.

Okay. how do we go from "matter we can't see" to equivocation with black holes? The properties are different.
[quote]
[quote]"To my knowledge Dark Matter is only slightly better defined (it has a number) than the entity commonly called "God"."[/quote]
The First Event is explained in "The Genesis of Relativity" and "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org.  It is a reaction of equal and opposite forces (or pressure in motion), at 90-degrees, which caused spin, which started a chain reaction, which led to all we see, according to the pattern called the Flower of Life, as seen in the photo of atoms.  Consciousness came before matter, logically (once you understand what consciousness essentially is), and so God was the first consciousness, and thought the same as we do, because we are created equally in the image of Gods mind.[/quote]
You've just jumped to a conclusion without giving a basis.


Yeah, me again

sennekuyl wrote:"you figured out the universe WITHOUT EQUATIONS!!)"

harleyborgais wrote:The reason Pi is a never ending number with no pattern is because there is always an indivisible remainder after every math operation when you try to compute the area between a curve and a line. Pi is the ratio between the Circumference and Diameter of circle. Because of this, you can only use ratios, not exact calculations, to comprehend the relationships between straight-line forces like attraction and repulsion, and the curved forces like centripetal force, centrifugal force, spin, etc. All growth and decay rates are curved functions over time (the straight line). This is why Geometry is more useful for understanding reality than math, and why the most sacred and ancient geometric figures, exactly model physical atoms and the lattice structures which give matter form.

But geometry is a subset of maths. Nice shapes is good and all, but it/they tells us nothing without being measured and correlated.

sennekuyl wrote:"black holes are the result of normal matter (a supermassive star) collapsing on itself due to the mass of the star ?curving space?"

Is that a question or a statement?
Sure, black holes are normal matter collapsed, that is what I described more specifically above.

I was acknowledging my statement was fuzzy.

"I have it from extremely reliable sources such as AIG that Dark Matter is a fudge to explain the missing mass of the universe."

I agree. But the fact is that there IS matter we cannot see, creating strong gravity fields, bending light, making stars move faster, etc. It is matter, it is dark, and there is more of IT, then of visible matter. This is all factual. Why not call it dark matter? The point is we cant see it.

I'll spell it out. Answers In Genesis.

Okay. how do we go from "matter we can't see" to equivocation with black holes? The properties are different.

"To my knowledge Dark Matter is only slightly better defined (it has a number) than the entity commonly called "God"."

The First Event is explained in "The Genesis of Relativity" and "How We Exist" at freeornottobe.org. It is a reaction of equal and opposite forces (or pressure in motion), at 90-degrees, which caused spin, which started a chain reaction, which led to all we see, according to the pattern called the Flower of Life, as seen in the photo of atoms. Consciousness came before matter, logically (once you understand what consciousness essentially is), and so God was the first consciousness, and thought the same as we do, because we are created equally in the image of Gods mind.

You've just jumped to a conclusion without giving a basis.