Looking for honest peer !

For quite a few years I posted on a forum which was associated with the James Randi Foundation which offered a million dollar prize for people who could reliably demonstrate paranormal abilities. One of the things the forum did was to help candidates come up with a test protocol to help them pass a preliminary test which would enable them to progress to the next stage - being tested for the main prize.

Quite often someone would start to engage but as soon as they realised that there would be rigorous testing, they would come up with a response like yours.

If your ideas really were workable then there's absolutely no reason why you would have to visit the Middle East, they would come to you. In the unlikely event that you did have to go and visit them, you would be whisked from air-conditioned hotel to air-conditioned limo to air-conditioned office and or research facility. There would be no need to break a sweat.

 

Because your ideas are hopelessly flawed. Any attempt to render them mathematically is doomed to failure.

 

I wouldn't fly in an airplane either ! I don't have wings and I can't get out and push if the engine breaks mid flight .

My ideas work , they use basic physics , factual stuff .

 

My ideas are physically 100 % accurate , therefore with the correct maths , Nobel material . Although I feel my maths works anyway .

I really understood Newton , Einstein , Dirac, Higgs and Tesla ...

added - Let's face it though , there is noway on Earth that science will give me a Nobel prize or even accept me into mainstream .

That is why I'm not going to finish my book and explain the rest !

Book 2 would of been fascinating , mind blowing even !

It would be nice to finish the maths though for what I've wrote so far . It's a shame I can't upload the Pdf .

I've rewrote physics without altering it too much .

 

Put up, or shut up.

You claim your ideas are great, you say that you're going to get support from the Middle East to fund their exploitation and yet as soon as anyone asks you whether you've done it, you come up with a range of pathetic excuses.

As a Texan would say, you're all hat and no cattle (and by happy coincidence, what you post seems to be a bovine by-product).

 

I once again refer other readers to this:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

There are 37 areas of assessment, looking at the first 8....

As my American nephew would say, "You're crushing it".....

 

Your argument about math is illogical when I've asked you to present the correct math if you insist my math is incorrect . This , you was unable to do , so instead took to bickering again , as if in a school yard .

My physics is flawless like it or not and my math does explain what it is intended to explain .

True or false : Q can be used to represent an electrical charge

True or false : R^n can represent an unspecified volume of real coordinate space i.e infinite

 

your "physics" goes against repeatedly tested and proven physics.

Your "math" is just as flawed, as has been constantly pointed out to you. You are trying to divide height, by temperature, and having it equal Colorado.

Again, obvious troll is obvious.

 

Your repeated tested physics strangely agrees with my theory , how odd that is !

 

Your ideas are so flawed, they are impossible to render mathematically

It's like you asked me to translate "Flibberty flobberty flup flup flurp" from English to French. It doesn't matter how good my French is, I still can't make it intelligible.

 

no they don't, as actual physicists keep pointing out to you.

 

Whatever !

 

Couldn't a big bang occur in space? Fairly big bangs do so today.

 

OP, please come back when you have won the Nobel prize for physics. We'd like to congratulate you. Proving Einstein wrong would be impressive. Can't wait.

 

Yes , here is part of one of my video that explains before any big bang event could happen .

 

Proving Einstein wrong on a few things is not difficult , it was much more difficult to think what he was thinking and advance his thinking .

Like I've said before , the scientists of our past , they ''told me'' everything . It's called educating oneself and advancing the things you've learned ,

 

but you haven't learned anything. actual physicists keep pointing this out to you.

 

I've learned myself , I understand better than science does . Part 2 .



As my theory explains ...

We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness .
Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) to form at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested is seemingly imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly occurred.
The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best ''guess'' of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, proposing opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .

 

but you haven't learned anything. actual physicists keep pointing this out to you.

 

But quite clearly you've learned nothing , it doesn't matter what actual physicists keep pointing out because the actual physics , present physics , points out those physicists are talking absolute garbage in saying my science is at fault .

 

but your "physics" is gibberish. Actual, repeatedly tested and proven physics shows your "physics" to be nonsense. Your "math" is also gibberish.

 

Actually , repeated and tested physics shows my theory to be more factual than any other theory to date .

My citations are :

Newton
Dirac
Einstein
Tesla
Coulomb

The Hafele–Keating experiment , Doppler agrees with me , the Hubble redshift agrees with me , history agrees with me etc.

Want to try again ?

 

nothing about your "theory" is factual.

 

It's all factual , get over it , no big deal .

Unless you're suggesting a mono-pole has a binary bond of itself ?

Or suggesting high energy state does not transfer to lesser energy states ?

or suggesting the earth is not oblate ?

 

n

nothing about your "theory" is factual