When I saw “waller” I was wondering how the Suicide Squad got involved.
This seems to be proposing that matter displaces space in the same way as physical objects displace air. This presupposes that space is some kind of substance in the same way matter is, and that matter can exist without space. That seems to defy the basic definition of space - the physical space in which things fit. You know, length, width, and height.
They are falling in toward each other, they just have enough tangential (sideways) velocity to miss. They keep falling and missing.
Your premise seems to be that “space” piles up around matter, and thus prevents matter from moving into lower space densities. This would be like oxygen clinging to dirt, preventing the dirt from floating up into the atmosphere where there is less oxygen.
This sounds vaguely like bubbles being forced together, and suddenly shifting to become one bigger bubble. All the soap moves to the outer surface rather than creating thin membranes between the bubbles, and the surface tension then makes the bubble one large sphere instead of two or more smaller spheres.
Again, there is nothing that connects this to any definition of “space”.
This is gibberish. How does an electromagnetic wave “decompress”? How does this “decompression” generate an electrical charge? Saying it happens (without any proof or any mathematics to back it up) doesn’t make it so.
How do some “decompressed waves” inside the “displaced space” cause a positive charge, but other “decompressed waves” inside the “displaced space” cause a negative charge?
How do you have a charge free of a particle? What is that?
Wait, you just contradicted yourself. Are electrons charged particles or not?
Your proposal is that the different elements are created inside the Earth, at different depths and therefore pressures, which cause the different element sizes and charges. How then do we find these heavier and larger elements at the surface? Wouldn’t they expand/decompress/transform as they moved outward to lower pressures?
I’ve saturated my gibberish limit.
Impossible without adding or changing concepts.
[quote=“wolfpup, post:57, topic:784289”]
[ul]
[li]“Waller” is not a word, at least, not in any language that I speak. You might have meant “wallow”, but it’s hard to know as the entirety of the thing is essentially incomprehensible.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing, but bothered to put “waller” in my search engine. There is an urbandictionary entry for said term:
Of course urbandictionary is hardly definitive of anything, since it can’t even agree within itself.
You can’t just arbitrarily string letters together and hope it means something. First off, your definitions of your terms are unclear. When you say s = surface vacuum, what do you mean? What units? Is that a pressure unit? A volume unit? A mass unit? You must make the assigned variables represent actual quantities, not vague concepts. Once you know what the actual quantities are that you are relating to each other, then you can understand the proposed relationships between them.
For example, I only know what density is after I’ve determined what mass and volume are. You need both of those before you can state that density = mass/volume. The concept of density is how matter is spread out. It only makes sense with definitions of amount of matter to spread and amount of space into which to spread it.
“U for universe” is a meaningless expression.
Forget all that science shit. I want to know how anybody with more than 3 brain cells can consider Oklahoma to be part of The South!
The census bureau might have more than 3…but I guess that is debatable, being the gub’mint and all.
I grew up in Arkansas and went to college in Oklahoma (insert joke here), and everyone I knew considered it so. It might not have been part of the Confederacy, but it identifies as the south.
I just wanted to say that Physics United would be a good name for an all physics department intramural soccer team.
::cough::post 27::cough::
Yeah…they’re wrong too. It’s plainly (snerk) in the Mid-West. 
Delaware? Really? 3 brain cells is being generous.
It’s pretty clear from the wiki cite’s map (United States Census Bureau - Wikipedia) that the Census Bureau is dividing the US into sections for bureaucratic convenience, not necessarily along cultural lines.
It’s also pretty clear that the cultural South (or linguistic South since this whole side kerfuffle started over the word “waller”) has fuzzy indistinct boundaries that don’t closely align with US state borders.
As if any of us could agree on what the term “South” even means, much less where it’s applicable.
Delaware was a slave state, like Maryland.
I think I can claim I’m from the True South: 13.2 degrees N. and didn’t abolish slavery until January 2nd, 1900.
Well, it is already established that “s” is surface vacuum and “u” is universe. “T” is probably time. So we still need to figure for “o” and “h”. (BTW, I see the thread over on the Science Forum has already been locked.)
Perhaps “o” is for oblivious and “h” for hubris. But the formula needs to use one or both as negative exponents to come close to a realistic measurement of the theory’s worth.
Oh, look, another text wall of incoherent nonsense attempting to explaining all of physics with classical analogies and no equations. I have to wonder: Do these people think actual physicists, with their “spoon fed ivy league egotistical education” and educated stupid and evil research, are just making shit up? That being a physics professor or running an accelerator consists of saying, “But, what if gravity is just like, space stacking up around a particle?” That asking why gravity doesn’t cause particles to fall into each other is a deeply incisive question rather than a severe misunderstanding of physics from more than three hundred years ago? That concrete predictions are unnecessary, or that the math would just get in the way? That Internet message boards are a great forum to disseminate new ideas in science?
I’ve seen so much of this ridiculous nonsense on the Internet that I’ve become genuinely curious about it. Is it just a masturbatory persecution fantasy, or can some people honestly not tell the difference between actual science and this drivel?
[QUOTE=The OP, elsewhere]
. I am not a mathematician so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I’m not sure.
[/QUOTE]
Are you sure you’re not a mathematician? This:
[QUOTE=The OP, elsewhere]
I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?
[/QUOTE]
looks like some first-rate mathematics to me. Have you ever considered rewriting your equations as something like G=C*PHI^n?
I think about a guy named C. David Parsons (no scientific training) who took it upon himself to rewrite all of science. Things such as water not being able to exist in space and that there is a “gravity crystal” in the core of the Earth that draws water to the Earth’s surface. And that all of the Earth is sedimentary, with little to no igneous rock. And that Jupiter is a solid object and that the patters on it’s surface are actually patches of colored sand blowing around. And something I don’t recall totally rewriting the structure of atoms. And denying relativity and quantum physics. And saying that all spectroscopes in telescopes seem to work because they are physically flawed, and are declared “most hated.” And renaming the planets and the days of the weeks to something that isn’t “pagan.” And of course denying evolution.
This guy planned to write 7 textbooks to be taught in schools everywhere to set the world straight on true science. He actually wrote the first 3 of them and paid to have pallets full of hardback textbooks printed up ready to sell, wrote up press releases (including providing print-ready high resolutions photos of himself holding a copy of one of his books), and spammed the comment sections of many science related sites and blogs. His stuff was so batshit that even the Christian homeschoolers wouldn’t buy it. I’ve sometimes wondered how much money he wasted printing those books, and what happened to them after the project’s failure.
A review. One of the blog posts that still survives. More. Much of the material seems to have disappeared into oblivion, but there is still a fair amount to be found.
Most of these would-be world changers can’t hold a candle to how seriously C David Parsons took himself. He was like Archimedes Plutonium, only slightly more sane.
Yeah, science, with all it’s replication and fancy equations; fuck that shit.
Here’s an excerpt from The Quest for Right Volume 1 (lifted from one of the links.)
*The scheme of coincidence, by definition, is "the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. The scheme mandates that the single pairing of an electron and proton creates an atom of hydrogen. The discovery that the fragmentation of a hydrocluster originally made up of some 400 members does not produce a residual element annuls the scheme of coincidence.
Concerning the law of additives and the disintegration of a hydrocluster [hydrogen] into a nonreactive fragment, the phenomenon has escaped the close scrutiny of scientists due, once again, to the incorrect architecture of the charge. A notable example is the paired bonding [isotope or isometric] of hydroclusters [hydrogen] in the production of hydrogen-3 (3H) radioisometrics. Called tritium, the spontaneously occurring isometric is produced as a result of rogue hydrogen reaching out with its electrostatic attraction to capture a free buttress [electron]. The captured buttress, in turn, brandishes a negative sign in an effort to attract other hydroclusters. A single buttress is limited to three open fields; in the example of a water molecule, two hydroclusters and one oxygen protruband share the same buttress. If the rogue [a hydrogen atom with an attached electron] is successful in pairing up with another hydrocluster in the sharing of its captured buttress, the simplest of molecules is produced: a diatomic hydrogen molecule (H2). The latter is very abundant and is called “hydrogen.” If another successful pairing occurs and the third and last open field is satisfied by a hydrocluster, a hydrogen-2 (deuterium) is produced. The pairing of a fourth hydrocluster requires a second articulate buttress [an electron joining two atoms], contributed by either the second, third, or fourth hydrocluster forming the molecule. The fourth unit transforms the hydrogen-2 molecule into hydrogen-3 (tritium). Tritium may also be formed by the accumulation of two H2 diatomic molecules. The paired bonding of tritium is limited to about one in 1018 ordinary hydroclusters. Tritium is a radioisometric and, upon the emission of one or more struts [protons], does not produce a residual element but a fragment of no further consequence in elementary phenomena. The reason paired bonding often produces a radioisometric will be explained in a later chapter. Moreover, the irrelevancy of labeling a molecular structure consisting of four like hydroclusters as tritium; from the Greek tritos—“third,” will be corrected.
Opposing the true is the quantum approach: hydrogen-3 is produced, via quantum magic, in the upper atmosphere by the interaction between cosmic rays (interplanetary dust consisting of buttresses and energy cells) and nitrogen atoms in the production of neutrons. The neutrons react with still other nitrogen atoms to form tritium. Tritium differs from ordinary hydrogen in that it is equated to possess two neutrons; deuterium is allotted one neutron. The mislabeled Hydrogen-3 is radioactive, has a suggested half-life of 12.5 years, and decays into a helium-3 nucleus and a negative beta particle.
The foregoing impropriety is merely an extension of the storage cell experiment in which beta particles (struts) were misjudged to be helium charges. The conjecture is that, if a beta particle is a helium atom, a hydrogen-3 radioisotope must, by extension, decay into a helium-3 nucleus. The matter of negative beta decay need not be entertained; it is but another quantum abuse conceived in error. Examples: A proton transforming into a neutron upon the emission of a positron and a neutrino; and, the production of an antineutrino as a neutron goes through beta minus decay to a proton and an electron. The neutron, the neutrino, and its antithesis do not exist; a positron is but a cameo performing briefly as a reversed-charged buttress.
There is a logical conclusion: The elementary disintegration; that is, the ejecting of struts from a protruband, may only produce a residual element, one with a lesser count of energy cells. By the same score, the disintegration cannot produce a higher element, one with a greater count of cells than the original. Accordingly, a hydrogen-3 radioisometric, upon the emission of one or more struts, cannot decay into a higher helium-3 isometric because the latter consists of a greater count of energy cells than the former.
The quantum scenario is akin to a small child at a blackboard with a piece of chalk contemplating an exercise in subtraction in which one is to be taken away from two. But instead of arriving at one as the correct answer, the child writes “3.” And so it is with quantum mathematics: when one is taken away from two, the answer may be deemed anything relative; for example, “four”: one alpha particle equals two protons and two neutrons.*
And yes, you, too, can own a copy of this magnificent book!
That takes me back.
So that’s the formula for time travel?