E=MC2 a philosophical blunder.

[saint martin]

E=MC2 the greatest mathematical blunder of the 20th century.

I wish to put in before anyone reads this, i am trying to enter into open discussion over this philosophy of relativity, though unlike the previous theory, i propose my theory incorporates all aspects including the actual conscious big bang rather than an unbelievable mistake of absolute chance most theorists claim it to be. This post has been removed from two sites without any explanation as to why, as i am the original philosopher, i would like to be at least communicated with if for any reason this does not conform to absolute origin of thought, which last i checked was what philosophy was supposed to research. kindest regards, martin.


let's put this into simple terms before i completely destroy this ridiculous theory of relativity, the fastest thing in the universe is the speed of light represented by C in the equation, supposedly a constant speed, or the constant of the universe.

so nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

so basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.

so let's look at this as a theory of everything, and add in the true equation E=MV (energy=mass multiplied by variable(s)).

as C=constant we can change our value of C to simplify the equation remembering that the value of C is always the maximum speed of the universe.

so we have an energy to work out with E=MC2, E=?, M=1, C=100.

so energy is equal to 1x100x100=10,000.

obviously as 100 is the maximum speed detonation or some other variable must be applied to gain anything else at this point, therefore as the dictionary states;

'Relativity 1. the fact or state of being relative. 2 physics [this is E=MC2 area of focus] a (special theory of relativity) a theory based on the principle theory that all motion is relative and that light has constant velocity, regarding space-time as a four-dimensional continuum, and modifying previous conceptions of geometry. b (general theory of relativity) a theory extending this to gravitation and accelerated motion.'

light has a constant velocity, and therefore does not even have any supposed acceleration or deceleration periods.

so anyone who knows anything about our universe will also know that those who believe in E=MC2, have a future destruction, or ending this is supposedly around 15 billion years from now, again another sign of inferior math's is how they shrink 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 billion to 1,000,000,000 or 1 thousand million or capitalistic billion, greed based acquisition of language as well as wealth.

so under the description of relativity, we find the word continuum, which means our universe if under the language restrictions placed by correct or accurate use means our universe has no future ending predictable.

so as we have the speed of light as a maximum, and we multiply it by itself to get impossibility, and we have a predicted ending for the universe, these two basic faults make Einstein and every supposed mathematician to have followed him erroneous.

I can give you the philosophy of how Einstein erred when he spoke to the infinite dreamer who Einstein credited all genius to, at our beginning we had only 1, from 1 came 2, from 2 came 4, from 4 came 8, from 8 came 16, this is a basic foundation for preparing to calculate infinity, which E=MC2 must be capable of doing or this part of relativity being the infinite source is forgotten. Now from that foundation we can start to multiply on an infinite scale;

infinity is equal to infinity to the power of infinity infinitely.

this is the basic philosophy of nothing or paradox theory of relativity with creation theory included, which is something i can get into later, as this is beyond some scientists on Earth at present with possibly the M-Theorists who accept light has variable speeds, as our leading founders of E=MC2 as a blunder.

Those who know M-Theory, from basic observations of a simple glass prism in good sun light in England i was able to extrapolate that red is the slowest, yellow second speed and blue the fastest under the 3 secondary light sources, these are contained in white groups which are also contained in black, so a 5 scale speed of light would be black fastest, white second and then as white is broken down into the supposed primary colours of blue, yellow and red.

I make black my chosen fastest as black is the absorption of all colour so a more realistic basic colour of infinity.

so back to our 1-2-4-8-16 on the true infinity scale, 1 -2 = 2, 2 - 4 = 16, 4 - 8 = 256, 8 - 16 = 65,536 and so on.

this can be repeated at greater scales also, whereby we predict a step or more, thusly under one predicted step we would have it as; 1 - 2 = 4, 4 - 16 = 65,536, obviously multiplying infinity out from a base value of 1 in stages incrementally.

those who are aware, if you place 1 grain of rice on the first square on a chess board, and double the number each square, you will not have enough rice (supposedly) on earth to fill the last square, that is the first scale of calculating infinity, which is obviously inferior than calculus which is what the second theory of calculating infinity is based upon, the third scale is taking leaps in calculus instead of the gradual infinite curve scale..

Now for a better theory of relativity, and this one is included or backed up by M-Theory (String Theory uses E=MC2 so is also buffoon territory, while M-Theory accepts that the speed of light is a variable depending on the colour of the light particles) E=MV.

Energy = Mass x Variables, as already covered earlier, the variables are calculated using calculus generating further mathematical equations, if M-Theory doesn't already use E=MV or some such variation then they will also be erroneous with the String Theorists.

another point of note for the mathematicians, you are chasing infinitives on the micro scale and infinities on the macro scale, every correct mathematical equation therefore must end with a sphere and/or orbits of spherical nature, at any point you can clearly identify a given shape with identifiable sides you have a failed calculation.

look at the universe then for my obvious evidence.

a galaxy is a sphere of light trapped in a black hole, from this we have a disk in 2D format in a 3D universe, from this orb/disk we find many more orbs, these orbs we call stars, when we go into these orbs we find more orbs around the orb, some of these orbs have orbs upon them, macro scale.

micro scale, we have the atom, this is an orb [this is in orbit with either a star or planet] with orbs, inside the primary orb we find more orbs, that is the limit of our current technology when actually zooming into the micro, due to inability to safely split open a nucleus of an atom. now with this there are other experiments, all experiments are created when we send spheres at high speeds, and we find more spheres when we actually find anything, sometimes they appear elongated due to the current technology of camera or light absorption.

this is what i thought about a month or so ago when i decided to self teach mathematics, i chose to look at E=MC2 and cried laughing straight away, sorry.

i would like to add, i am entirely self educated, i am a 40 year old man, who suffered a brain injury 12 years ago, and 4 years ago managed to start reading again, and so have studied a little over the past four years, i am now keen to see how advanced my mind is from a reincarnation type event survived.

this is no joke, E=MC2 is seriously a misinterpretation of the philosophy of chasing infinities and infinitives, macro and micro cosmology, as Einstein said he got the information from the infinite dreamer, this therefore must have been in philosophical format or it would not be a foundation thought..

if you think of it like this, we have a point zero for the big bang to hold any theory, and so far all theories agree we had some form of big bang creating everything from nothing, which when you keep on philosophical terms is a definite paradox, so hence paradox creation theory also contained in E=MV.

so from point zero we have to get to a point 1, or 2 as we now recognise a start point to be either a 1 or a 0, 0 for it was nothing, but 1 as we tend to start with 1 when following a step diagram philosophy. with the earlier multiplications we multiplied infinity on a very basic scale, we were supposing infinity was not conscious and to be honest i think this is Darwin's error on his theory of evolution also, he mentions the mind in evolution and then straight away leaves it out, at this point i thought he actually had it, consciousness generating reincarnation, therefore carrying a previous genetic diagram of a potential deformity leading to evolving the species, seems an obvious alteration to random design, to intelligent random design, after all he turned to god and gave up in the end.

so this time we say infinity is conscious, we now have a base thought in which to make calculations based upon the number of fragments of conscious concrete mind type explosion [i have read some philosophies of occult studies (philosophy, psychology, history, politics, religion, economics, commerce, law, with string theory and physics only via documentaries (i have further studies to add to this in due course, mathematics and physics is what i am looking at now))], i add this now as it is relevant to the concrete mind version of paradox creation theory which i will gladly discuss sensibly with those interested later.

so with consciousness infinity can calculate with any method to come up with a base infinity scale to start the expansion mind set for an intelligent conscious big bang explosion, let us say infinity at its first series of calculations decided it needed one centrillion (1 with 600 0's)as its first base vale.

so we would now have as our infinity base calculation, one centrillion to the power centrillion to the power centrillion as our first explosive calculation to begin evolution and creation, this therefore generates an area of controllable space for the big bang to continuously expand into, generating a continuum which is needed for the theory of relativity..

now as all religions have some form of story hidden or in plain texts of someone trying to steal creation, this leads to the belief of a simple paradox creation first, being in a dream format ending with the death of the creator in the big bang, splintering into conscious complex paradoxes, but reincarnating as an equal if paradise is found, or a wrathful or just god if found in hell, sorry for straying, trying to point out this is a theory of everything as E=MC2 is supposed to be.

so it is plausible to see the big bang as two ignition points when religion is taken into physics, creating a better metaphysics subject, as E=MC2 claimed it did, as i said, my E=MV does this, my primary variable to sustain conscious life, is immortal conscious reincarnation.

this cannot be philosophically denied, so remains as a perfect philosophy (where did your consciousness come from if you have an argument against this) if you can philosophically follow me through the dilemma of E=MC2 as erroneous and E=MV as the only viable option at present.

so we have a potential big bang of a loving nature which may have avoided pain for all simple paradoxes involved in the initial ignition of creation, and then shortly afterwards we have an attack creating a potential for a second big bang which is filled with anti matter, or also could be called anti paradoxes as complex paradox creation is what the big bang must be.

personally with consciousness involved with the creation, i doubt anti matter would have been needed, as infinite consciousness is nothing (at least that's my stand point so far, i'm interested in discussing many of my points maturely), nothing could make mater without the need for anti mater, or how did it create the matter in the first place?, both needed to be created from nothing, so one was probably not needed or why are they destructive together?

now this is where my open agreement with the string theory version of the big bang ended, as they ignored the fact light must have an acceleration speed, which they completely refuse to accept, they showed five versions of galaxies i think it was, four failed and one was like a swas-sticka (this was Hitler's belief on the shape of the Milky Way) design, so as Hitler's idea of a four pronged galaxy has been proven erroneous with our two pronged sweeping spiral galaxy we know we live in today, so to me string theory is a Hitler error, the only working galaxy is nowhere to be seen in over 200 million galaxies in the known universe, so how does it prove anything?

here is my big gap, i can agree with star formations leading to the super giant class early stars as being the galaxies of today when they exploded, creating many big bang type creation events, which could prove a teaching consciousness to all those worthy, and going by the number of probably living stars in the universe means our creator shared everything in death and hopefully life too when the explosion finishes, as that is another paradox of a conscious creation. we can actually be in a state of conscious existence preceding creation as per Sartre' Being and Nothingness.

so i have ideas around the micro beginning of the universe and i have the macro in another similar explanation due to the nature of the repeating sphere patterns all over creation, which leads back to the micro cosmos.

as i have very basic math's at my disposal (GCSE C grade, also this is my only qualification from school, a late study really) i would like to enter philosophical discussions around the atom, and more interestedly in how manipulation of the orbits of the atom could potentially change the qualities of the atom, i may be ahead of our technology here, as we can't enter the nucleus yet, can we manipulate the orbits (electrons) safely?


regards

martin.

[HexHammer]

Havn't read wall of txt, but the a-bomb proved beyond reasonable doubt that the equation indeed was true.

[Ginkgo]

Havn't read wall of txt, but the a-bomb proved beyond reasonable doubt that the equation indeed was true.

Yes, a good example.

Martin, I don't think you are suppose to multiply C2 ipso facto. In the equation, kinetic energy is proportional to mass.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No one has said Einstein's equation is the 'theory of everything'. It falls apart at the quantum level.

[Blaggard]

Yes another misguided attempt to destroy a theory by words alone.

In experiment if you take antihydrogen and let it anihilate with its matter partner hydrogen the resultant energy concerns are exactly equal to mc^2 minus a bit of lost energy to the system. End of the day if the experiment says its right it doesn't matter what you do it's right.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox, now we may begin to make progress."

Bohr on infinities.

If you hit an infinity in physics it means you are wrong somewhere.

You need to know that infinity is a limit not an actual physical value so talking about infinities is a waste of time in real terms.

Infinity is not a number either it is a concept to which calculus can use as a limit.

for example

the intergral of x^2 in the limits of + infinity is 1/2 x^3 which is the area of its domain which is actually infinite in extent, the only time that would apply to something real though is if it applied to say all the energy in the universe and then it would be finite. The integral law states that if you divide something infinitely it has an exact value, it does not state that this is possible only that if it were you would have the exact value of say pi.


Black is not a colour it is the absence of light as perceived by our visual cortex. And white is not a colour either but a mix of all the colours.

light always propagates at c in a vacuum, this is the reason and only thing you need to know to derive all of special relativity. the wavelength of light may vary but it's speed is constant which is why c which is equal to the speed of light is a constant not a variable.

In fact even in a medium light is slowed but this means little except that certain vibrational modes are favoured by the structure of a substance and so some light frequencies are more impeded by glass than others hence some wavelengths are more diffracted than others.

In fact if there was a difference in speed intrinsic to light then this would not be true wavelength = velocity/frequency and the whole of physics would in fact come crumbling down.

Fortunately though it appears to be true.

Welcome to the mad house though saint martin we hope you enjoy your stay.

No one has said Einstein's equation is the 'theory of everything'. It falls apart at the quantum level.

Einstein wasted the latter years of his life looking for a theory of everything which he never found.

[Greylorn Ell]

E=MC2 the greatest mathematical blunder of the 20th century.

I wish to put in before anyone reads this, i am trying to enter into open discussion over this philosophy of relativity, though unlike the previous theory, i propose my theory incorporates all aspects including the actual conscious big bang rather than an unbelievable mistake of absolute chance most theorists claim it to be. This post has been removed from two sites without any explanation as to why, as i am the original philosopher, i would like to be at least communicated with if for any reason this does not conform to absolute origin of thought, which last i checked was what philosophy was supposed to research. kindest regards, martin.


let's put this into simple terms before i completely destroy this ridiculous theory of relativity, the fastest thing in the universe is the speed of light represented by C in the equation, supposedly a constant speed, or the constant of the universe.

so nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

so basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.

so let's look at this as a theory of everything, and add in the true equation E=MV (energy=mass multiplied by variable(s)).

as C=constant we can change our value of C to simplify the equation remembering that the value of C is always the maximum speed of the universe.

so we have an energy to work out with E=MC2, E=?, M=1, C=100.

so energy is equal to 1x100x100=10,000.

obviously as 100 is the maximum speed detonation or some other variable must be applied to gain anything else at this point, therefore as the dictionary states;

'Relativity 1. the fact or state of being relative. 2 physics [this is E=MC2 area of focus] a (special theory of relativity) a theory based on the principle theory that all motion is relative and that light has constant velocity, regarding space-time as a four-dimensional continuum, and modifying previous conceptions of geometry. b (general theory of relativity) a theory extending this to gravitation and accelerated motion.'

light has a constant velocity, and therefore does not even have any supposed acceleration or deceleration periods.

so anyone who knows anything about our universe will also know that those who believe in E=MC2, have a future destruction, or ending this is supposedly around 15 billion years from now, again another sign of inferior math's is how they shrink 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 billion to 1,000,000,000 or 1 thousand million or capitalistic billion, greed based acquisition of language as well as wealth.

so under the description of relativity, we find the word continuum, which means our universe if under the language restrictions placed by correct or accurate use means our universe has no future ending predictable.

so as we have the speed of light as a maximum, and we multiply it by itself to get impossibility, and we have a predicted ending for the universe, these two basic faults make Einstein and every supposed mathematician to have followed him erroneous.

I can give you the philosophy of how Einstein erred when he spoke to the infinite dreamer who Einstein credited all genius to, at our beginning we had only 1, from 1 came 2, from 2 came 4, from 4 came 8, from 8 came 16, this is a basic foundation for preparing to calculate infinity, which E=MC2 must be capable of doing or this part of relativity being the infinite source is forgotten. Now from that foundation we can start to multiply on an infinite scale;

infinity is equal to infinity to the power of infinity infinitely.

this is the basic philosophy of nothing or paradox theory of relativity with creation theory included, which is something i can get into later, as this is beyond some scientists on Earth at present with possibly the M-Theorists who accept light has variable speeds, as our leading founders of E=MC2 as a blunder.

Those who know M-Theory, from basic observations of a simple glass prism in good sun light in England i was able to extrapolate that red is the slowest, yellow second speed and blue the fastest under the 3 secondary light sources, these are contained in white groups which are also contained in black, so a 5 scale speed of light would be black fastest, white second and then as white is broken down into the supposed primary colours of blue, yellow and red.

I make black my chosen fastest as black is the absorption of all colour so a more realistic basic colour of infinity.

so back to our 1-2-4-8-16 on the true infinity scale, 1 -2 = 2, 2 - 4 = 16, 4 - 8 = 256, 8 - 16 = 65,536 and so on.

this can be repeated at greater scales also, whereby we predict a step or more, thusly under one predicted step we would have it as; 1 - 2 = 4, 4 - 16 = 65,536, obviously multiplying infinity out from a base value of 1 in stages incrementally.

those who are aware, if you place 1 grain of rice on the first square on a chess board, and double the number each square, you will not have enough rice (supposedly) on earth to fill the last square, that is the first scale of calculating infinity, which is obviously inferior than calculus which is what the second theory of calculating infinity is based upon, the third scale is taking leaps in calculus instead of the gradual infinite curve scale..

Now for a better theory of relativity, and this one is included or backed up by M-Theory (String Theory uses E=MC2 so is also buffoon territory, while M-Theory accepts that the speed of light is a variable depending on the colour of the light particles) E=MV.

Energy = Mass x Variables, as already covered earlier, the variables are calculated using calculus generating further mathematical equations, if M-Theory doesn't already use E=MV or some such variation then they will also be erroneous with the String Theorists.

another point of note for the mathematicians, you are chasing infinitives on the micro scale and infinities on the macro scale, every correct mathematical equation therefore must end with a sphere and/or orbits of spherical nature, at any point you can clearly identify a given shape with identifiable sides you have a failed calculation.

look at the universe then for my obvious evidence.

a galaxy is a sphere of light trapped in a black hole, from this we have a disk in 2D format in a 3D universe, from this orb/disk we find many more orbs, these orbs we call stars, when we go into these orbs we find more orbs around the orb, some of these orbs have orbs upon them, macro scale.

micro scale, we have the atom, this is an orb [this is in orbit with either a star or planet] with orbs, inside the primary orb we find more orbs, that is the limit of our current technology when actually zooming into the micro, due to inability to safely split open a nucleus of an atom. now with this there are other experiments, all experiments are created when we send spheres at high speeds, and we find more spheres when we actually find anything, sometimes they appear elongated due to the current technology of camera or light absorption.

this is what i thought about a month or so ago when i decided to self teach mathematics, i chose to look at E=MC2 and cried laughing straight away, sorry.

i would like to add, i am entirely self educated, i am a 40 year old man, who suffered a brain injury 12 years ago, and 4 years ago managed to start reading again, and so have studied a little over the past four years, i am now keen to see how advanced my mind is from a reincarnation type event survived.

this is no joke, E=MC2 is seriously a misinterpretation of the philosophy of chasing infinities and infinitives, macro and micro cosmology, as Einstein said he got the information from the infinite dreamer, this therefore must have been in philosophical format or it would not be a foundation thought..

if you think of it like this, we have a point zero for the big bang to hold any theory, and so far all theories agree we had some form of big bang creating everything from nothing, which when you keep on philosophical terms is a definite paradox, so hence paradox creation theory also contained in E=MV.

so from point zero we have to get to a point 1, or 2 as we now recognise a start point to be either a 1 or a 0, 0 for it was nothing, but 1 as we tend to start with 1 when following a step diagram philosophy. with the earlier multiplications we multiplied infinity on a very basic scale, we were supposing infinity was not conscious and to be honest i think this is Darwin's error on his theory of evolution also, he mentions the mind in evolution and then straight away leaves it out, at this point i thought he actually had it, consciousness generating reincarnation, therefore carrying a previous genetic diagram of a potential deformity leading to evolving the species, seems an obvious alteration to random design, to intelligent random design, after all he turned to god and gave up in the end.

so this time we say infinity is conscious, we now have a base thought in which to make calculations based upon the number of fragments of conscious concrete mind type explosion [i have read some philosophies of occult studies (philosophy, psychology, history, politics, religion, economics, commerce, law, with string theory and physics only via documentaries (i have further studies to add to this in due course, mathematics and physics is what i am looking at now))], i add this now as it is relevant to the concrete mind version of paradox creation theory which i will gladly discuss sensibly with those interested later.

so with consciousness infinity can calculate with any method to come up with a base infinity scale to start the expansion mind set for an intelligent conscious big bang explosion, let us say infinity at its first series of calculations decided it needed one centrillion (1 with 600 0's)as its first base vale.

so we would now have as our infinity base calculation, one centrillion to the power centrillion to the power centrillion as our first explosive calculation to begin evolution and creation, this therefore generates an area of controllable space for the big bang to continuously expand into, generating a continuum which is needed for the theory of relativity..

now as all religions have some form of story hidden or in plain texts of someone trying to steal creation, this leads to the belief of a simple paradox creation first, being in a dream format ending with the death of the creator in the big bang, splintering into conscious complex paradoxes, but reincarnating as an equal if paradise is found, or a wrathful or just god if found in hell, sorry for straying, trying to point out this is a theory of everything as E=MC2 is supposed to be.

so it is plausible to see the big bang as two ignition points when religion is taken into physics, creating a better metaphysics subject, as E=MC2 claimed it did, as i said, my E=MV does this, my primary variable to sustain conscious life, is immortal conscious reincarnation.

this cannot be philosophically denied, so remains as a perfect philosophy (where did your consciousness come from if you have an argument against this) if you can philosophically follow me through the dilemma of E=MC2 as erroneous and E=MV as the only viable option at present.

so we have a potential big bang of a loving nature which may have avoided pain for all simple paradoxes involved in the initial ignition of creation, and then shortly afterwards we have an attack creating a potential for a second big bang which is filled with anti matter, or also could be called anti paradoxes as complex paradox creation is what the big bang must be.

personally with consciousness involved with the creation, i doubt anti matter would have been needed, as infinite consciousness is nothing (at least that's my stand point so far, i'm interested in discussing many of my points maturely), nothing could make mater without the need for anti mater, or how did it create the matter in the first place?, both needed to be created from nothing, so one was probably not needed or why are they destructive together?

now this is where my open agreement with the string theory version of the big bang ended, as they ignored the fact light must have an acceleration speed, which they completely refuse to accept, they showed five versions of galaxies i think it was, four failed and one was like a swas-sticka (this was Hitler's belief on the shape of the Milky Way) design, so as Hitler's idea of a four pronged galaxy has been proven erroneous with our two pronged sweeping spiral galaxy we know we live in today, so to me string theory is a Hitler error, the only working galaxy is nowhere to be seen in over 200 million galaxies in the known universe, so how does it prove anything?

here is my big gap, i can agree with star formations leading to the super giant class early stars as being the galaxies of today when they exploded, creating many big bang type creation events, which could prove a teaching consciousness to all those worthy, and going by the number of probably living stars in the universe means our creator shared everything in death and hopefully life too when the explosion finishes, as that is another paradox of a conscious creation. we can actually be in a state of conscious existence preceding creation as per Sartre' Being and Nothingness.

so i have ideas around the micro beginning of the universe and i have the macro in another similar explanation due to the nature of the repeating sphere patterns all over creation, which leads back to the micro cosmos.

as i have very basic math's at my disposal (GCSE C grade, also this is my only qualification from school, a late study really) i would like to enter philosophical discussions around the atom, and more interestedly in how manipulation of the orbits of the atom could potentially change the qualities of the atom, i may be ahead of our technology here, as we can't enter the nucleus yet, can we manipulate the orbits (electrons) safely?


regards

martin.

SM,
I got through about a dozen paragraphs of this before coming to the conclusion that you know as much physics as a gerbil. Nonetheless, I appreciate your desire to correct faulty theories and introduce improvements. Unfortunately you are unqualified to do so. The first clue is your use of the word "math's," indicating that you understand neither mathematics nor English grammar, and are unlikely to do so in the future.

The second clue is your clause, "as C=constant we can change our value of C..." There's no point in inviting you to study some physics to learn what the word "constant" means in its context, but perhaps you could take a few moments to look up that word in an ordinary dictionary.

Chances are that your posts on other forums were scratched by moderators to either avoid wasting their participants' reading time, or, more generously, to spare you from embarrassing yourself the more. Physics ignorance and grammatical incompetence are an uninviting mix, like oatmeal and garlic. Competent writers know enough to capitalize the first word of a sentence.

If you need to communicate to validate yourself, may I suggest that you PM a fellow who goes by the handle of Blaggard, and who posts regularly on PNow in complaint of alternative ideas. He won't like you either, but inasmuch as you are kindred spirits of similar intelligence but divergent viewpoints, you might get in some self-amusing arguments.

Even better, if you piss him off he'll become your personal troll and will follow you wherever you go on this forum. He's really a lot of fun. If you get him worked up enough, which is no more difficult than getting the dog next door to bark by throwing cats at him, he'll continue to praise you even more vociferously when you no longer read his posts.

If you actually take yourself seriously, why not get an A average physics degree from a serious university (no, not DeVry) before embarrassing yourself further? Too much work? Unqualified? If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do so, think about a nice day job putting nuts on bolts, and spend some evenings in your local library studying Charles Fort. His are the kind of writings to which you might legitimately aspire. No mathematical expertise required, and his four books are each a fun read.

Gl

[Blaggard]

Greyhorn will you stop insulting me.

You are by far the most remedial and uninformed braggart I have ever seen post on the internet. Your massive ego aside and your Napoleon complex aside, which clearly shows you are massively over compensating for one can only imagine you actually being a bit thick or having a tiny penis or something does not give you the right to abuse posters such as the above, or to mock them, you sanctimonious fraud.

Suffice to say keep me out of your inane rants about science keeping you down and how everyone except you the supra genius El Grey are being kept down by the fucking mole men or whatever other clearly vacuous garbage you want to vomit at people as if it makes any sense.

Thanks.

If you actually take yourself seriously, why not get an A average physics degree from a serious university (no, not DeVry) before embarrassing yourself further? Too much work? Unqualified? If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do so, think about a nice day job putting nuts on bolts, and spend some evenings in your local library studying Charles Fort. His are the kind of writings to which you might legitimately aspire. No mathematical expertise required, and his four books are each a fun read.

Physician heal thyself seeing as you don't have one numb nut.

Seriously is it a tiny penis? About the size of my little finger, or are we talking about a half mini gherkin sized deal?

[bobevenson]

E=MC2 the greatest mathematical blunder of the 20th century.

I wish to put in before anyone reads this, i am trying to enter into open discussion over this philosophy of relativity, though unlike the previous theory, i propose my theory incorporates all aspects including the actual conscious big bang rather than an unbelievable mistake of absolute chance most theorists claim it to be. This post has been removed from two sites without any explanation as to why, as i am the original philosopher, i would like to be at least communicated with if for any reason this does not conform to absolute origin of thought, which last i checked was what philosophy was supposed to research. kindest regards, martin.


let's put this into simple terms before i completely destroy this ridiculous theory of relativity, the fastest thing in the universe is the speed of light represented by C in the equation, supposedly a constant speed, or the constant of the universe.

so nothing is faster than the speed of C, except energy which is at CxC!

so basically by multiplying the number by itself we have an impossible speed and therefore an impossible equation as it is supposed to explain everything.

so let's look at this as a theory of everything, and add in the true equation E=MV (energy=mass multiplied by variable(s)).

as C=constant we can change our value of C to simplify the equation remembering that the value of C is always the maximum speed of the universe.

so we have an energy to work out with E=MC2, E=?, M=1, C=100.

so energy is equal to 1x100x100=10,000.

obviously as 100 is the maximum speed detonation or some other variable must be applied to gain anything else at this point, therefore as the dictionary states;

'Relativity 1. the fact or state of being relative. 2 physics [this is E=MC2 area of focus] a (special theory of relativity) a theory based on the principle theory that all motion is relative and that light has constant velocity, regarding space-time as a four-dimensional continuum, and modifying previous conceptions of geometry. b (general theory of relativity) a theory extending this to gravitation and accelerated motion.'

light has a constant velocity, and therefore does not even have any supposed acceleration or deceleration periods.

so anyone who knows anything about our universe will also know that those who believe in E=MC2, have a future destruction, or ending this is supposedly around 15 billion years from now, again another sign of inferior math's is how they shrink 1,000,000,000,000 or 1 billion to 1,000,000,000 or 1 thousand million or capitalistic billion, greed based acquisition of language as well as wealth.

so under the description of relativity, we find the word continuum, which means our universe if under the language restrictions placed by correct or accurate use means our universe has no future ending predictable.

so as we have the speed of light as a maximum, and we multiply it by itself to get impossibility, and we have a predicted ending for the universe, these two basic faults make Einstein and every supposed mathematician to have followed him erroneous.

I can give you the philosophy of how Einstein erred when he spoke to the infinite dreamer who Einstein credited all genius to, at our beginning we had only 1, from 1 came 2, from 2 came 4, from 4 came 8, from 8 came 16, this is a basic foundation for preparing to calculate infinity, which E=MC2 must be capable of doing or this part of relativity being the infinite source is forgotten. Now from that foundation we can start to multiply on an infinite scale;

infinity is equal to infinity to the power of infinity infinitely.

this is the basic philosophy of nothing or paradox theory of relativity with creation theory included, which is something i can get into later, as this is beyond some scientists on Earth at present with possibly the M-Theorists who accept light has variable speeds, as our leading founders of E=MC2 as a blunder.

Those who know M-Theory, from basic observations of a simple glass prism in good sun light in England i was able to extrapolate that red is the slowest, yellow second speed and blue the fastest under the 3 secondary light sources, these are contained in white groups which are also contained in black, so a 5 scale speed of light would be black fastest, white second and then as white is broken down into the supposed primary colours of blue, yellow and red.

I make black my chosen fastest as black is the absorption of all colour so a more realistic basic colour of infinity.

so back to our 1-2-4-8-16 on the true infinity scale, 1 -2 = 2, 2 - 4 = 16, 4 - 8 = 256, 8 - 16 = 65,536 and so on.

this can be repeated at greater scales also, whereby we predict a step or more, thusly under one predicted step we would have it as; 1 - 2 = 4, 4 - 16 = 65,536, obviously multiplying infinity out from a base value of 1 in stages incrementally.

those who are aware, if you place 1 grain of rice on the first square on a chess board, and double the number each square, you will not have enough rice (supposedly) on earth to fill the last square, that is the first scale of calculating infinity, which is obviously inferior than calculus which is what the second theory of calculating infinity is based upon, the third scale is taking leaps in calculus instead of the gradual infinite curve scale..

Now for a better theory of relativity, and this one is included or backed up by M-Theory (String Theory uses E=MC2 so is also buffoon territory, while M-Theory accepts that the speed of light is a variable depending on the colour of the light particles) E=MV.

Energy = Mass x Variables, as already covered earlier, the variables are calculated using calculus generating further mathematical equations, if M-Theory doesn't already use E=MV or some such variation then they will also be erroneous with the String Theorists.

another point of note for the mathematicians, you are chasing infinitives on the micro scale and infinities on the macro scale, every correct mathematical equation therefore must end with a sphere and/or orbits of spherical nature, at any point you can clearly identify a given shape with identifiable sides you have a failed calculation.

look at the universe then for my obvious evidence.

a galaxy is a sphere of light trapped in a black hole, from this we have a disk in 2D format in a 3D universe, from this orb/disk we find many more orbs, these orbs we call stars, when we go into these orbs we find more orbs around the orb, some of these orbs have orbs upon them, macro scale.

micro scale, we have the atom, this is an orb [this is in orbit with either a star or planet] with orbs, inside the primary orb we find more orbs, that is the limit of our current technology when actually zooming into the micro, due to inability to safely split open a nucleus of an atom. now with this there are other experiments, all experiments are created when we send spheres at high speeds, and we find more spheres when we actually find anything, sometimes they appear elongated due to the current technology of camera or light absorption.

this is what i thought about a month or so ago when i decided to self teach mathematics, i chose to look at E=MC2 and cried laughing straight away, sorry.

i would like to add, i am entirely self educated, i am a 40 year old man, who suffered a brain injury 12 years ago, and 4 years ago managed to start reading again, and so have studied a little over the past four years, i am now keen to see how advanced my mind is from a reincarnation type event survived.

this is no joke, E=MC2 is seriously a misinterpretation of the philosophy of chasing infinities and infinitives, macro and micro cosmology, as Einstein said he got the information from the infinite dreamer, this therefore must have been in philosophical format or it would not be a foundation thought..

if you think of it like this, we have a point zero for the big bang to hold any theory, and so far all theories agree we had some form of big bang creating everything from nothing, which when you keep on philosophical terms is a definite paradox, so hence paradox creation theory also contained in E=MV.

so from point zero we have to get to a point 1, or 2 as we now recognise a start point to be either a 1 or a 0, 0 for it was nothing, but 1 as we tend to start with 1 when following a step diagram philosophy. with the earlier multiplications we multiplied infinity on a very basic scale, we were supposing infinity was not conscious and to be honest i think this is Darwin's error on his theory of evolution also, he mentions the mind in evolution and then straight away leaves it out, at this point i thought he actually had it, consciousness generating reincarnation, therefore carrying a previous genetic diagram of a potential deformity leading to evolving the species, seems an obvious alteration to random design, to intelligent random design, after all he turned to god and gave up in the end.

so this time we say infinity is conscious, we now have a base thought in which to make calculations based upon the number of fragments of conscious concrete mind type explosion [i have read some philosophies of occult studies (philosophy, psychology, history, politics, religion, economics, commerce, law, with string theory and physics only via documentaries (i have further studies to add to this in due course, mathematics and physics is what i am looking at now))], i add this now as it is relevant to the concrete mind version of paradox creation theory which i will gladly discuss sensibly with those interested later.

so with consciousness infinity can calculate with any method to come up with a base infinity scale to start the expansion mind set for an intelligent conscious big bang explosion, let us say infinity at its first series of calculations decided it needed one centrillion (1 with 600 0's)as its first base vale.

so we would now have as our infinity base calculation, one centrillion to the power centrillion to the power centrillion as our first explosive calculation to begin evolution and creation, this therefore generates an area of controllable space for the big bang to continuously expand into, generating a continuum which is needed for the theory of relativity..

now as all religions have some form of story hidden or in plain texts of someone trying to steal creation, this leads to the belief of a simple paradox creation first, being in a dream format ending with the death of the creator in the big bang, splintering into conscious complex paradoxes, but reincarnating as an equal if paradise is found, or a wrathful or just god if found in hell, sorry for straying, trying to point out this is a theory of everything as E=MC2 is supposed to be.

so it is plausible to see the big bang as two ignition points when religion is taken into physics, creating a better metaphysics subject, as E=MC2 claimed it did, as i said, my E=MV does this, my primary variable to sustain conscious life, is immortal conscious reincarnation.

this cannot be philosophically denied, so remains as a perfect philosophy (where did your consciousness come from if you have an argument against this) if you can philosophically follow me through the dilemma of E=MC2 as erroneous and E=MV as the only viable option at present.

so we have a potential big bang of a loving nature which may have avoided pain for all simple paradoxes involved in the initial ignition of creation, and then shortly afterwards we have an attack creating a potential for a second big bang which is filled with anti matter, or also could be called anti paradoxes as complex paradox creation is what the big bang must be.

personally with consciousness involved with the creation, i doubt anti matter would have been needed, as infinite consciousness is nothing (at least that's my stand point so far, i'm interested in discussing many of my points maturely), nothing could make mater without the need for anti mater, or how did it create the matter in the first place?, both needed to be created from nothing, so one was probably not needed or why are they destructive together?

now this is where my open agreement with the string theory version of the big bang ended, as they ignored the fact light must have an acceleration speed, which they completely refuse to accept, they showed five versions of galaxies i think it was, four failed and one was like a swas-sticka (this was Hitler's belief on the shape of the Milky Way) design, so as Hitler's idea of a four pronged galaxy has been proven erroneous with our two pronged sweeping spiral galaxy we know we live in today, so to me string theory is a Hitler error, the only working galaxy is nowhere to be seen in over 200 million galaxies in the known universe, so how does it prove anything?

here is my big gap, i can agree with star formations leading to the super giant class early stars as being the galaxies of today when they exploded, creating many big bang type creation events, which could prove a teaching consciousness to all those worthy, and going by the number of probably living stars in the universe means our creator shared everything in death and hopefully life too when the explosion finishes, as that is another paradox of a conscious creation. we can actually be in a state of conscious existence preceding creation as per Sartre' Being and Nothingness.

so i have ideas around the micro beginning of the universe and i have the macro in another similar explanation due to the nature of the repeating sphere patterns all over creation, which leads back to the micro cosmos.

as i have very basic math's at my disposal (GCSE C grade, also this is my only qualification from school, a late study really) i would like to enter philosophical discussions around the atom, and more interestedly in how manipulation of the orbits of the atom could potentially change the qualities of the atom, i may be ahead of our technology here, as we can't enter the nucleus yet, can we manipulate the orbits (electrons) safely?


regards

martin.

Has your scientific theory been subjected to and confirmed by peer review? Apparently not, or you would be famous and a candidate for the Nobel Prize in physics.

[Greylorn Ell]

Greyhorn will you stop insulting me.

You are by far the most remedial and uninformed braggart I have ever seen post on the internet. Your massive ego aside and your Napoleon complex aside, which clearly shows you are massively over compensating for one can only imagine you actually being a bit thick or having a tiny penis or something does not give you the right to abuse posters such as the above, or to mock them, you sanctimonious fraud.

Suffice to say keep me out of your inane rants about science keeping you down and how everyone except you the supra genius El Grey are being kept down by the fucking mole men or whatever other clearly vacuous garbage you want to vomit at people as if it makes any sense.

Thanks.

If you actually take yourself seriously, why not get an A average physics degree from a serious university (no, not DeVry) before embarrassing yourself further? Too much work? Unqualified? If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do so, think about a nice day job putting nuts on bolts, and spend some evenings in your local library studying Charles Fort. His are the kind of writings to which you might legitimately aspire. No mathematical expertise required, and his four books are each a fun read.

Physician heal thyself seeing as you don't have one numb nut.

Seriously is it a tiny penis? About the size of my little finger, or are we talking about a half mini gherkin sized deal?

I measure it in fractions of a meter, so as to keep the number low and not intimidate others. However, I'm heterosexual, so you'll need to look elsewhere. Have you considered professional counseling?

Sorry if the previous post offended you. You seem perpetually angry. This is often caused by resentment. Individuals of average intelligence often feel inferior when they attempt to converse with those who are 20 ticks or more higher in intelligence, and lash out reflexively in their resentful anger. No need for that. I was just playing matchmaker here, hoping to connect you with a friend who seems to think at your level, yet who takes a different position on things. You clearly need to argue. You should value someone who is happy to argue, and will do so at your level.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One cannot play anothers inferior game while claiming to be superior. The truly superior shall say nothing, going about superior tasks, which is not playing inferior games!

In other words, those that play the game are equally suited for that game, or they wouldn't play it!

[Greylorn Ell]

One cannot play anothers inferior game while claiming to be superior. The truly superior shall say nothing, going about superior tasks, which is not playing inferior games!

In other words, those that play the game are equally suited for that game, or they wouldn't play it!

The last two halfwitted Republican candidates for US President played your chicken-shit game against the Democrat masters of cheap shots and lies. Look where it got them.

I've played a lot of games, and learned to play at the level of whomever's across the court, across from me at the line of scrimmage, at bat, or sitting at the same table. I've had a number of fistfights, and learned that the object of them is to throw punches. I prefer to play according to the rules, but will adopt the standards of my opponent if necessary. Last barfight I was in, in defense of someone, I started with a standard martial arts bow, during which my opponent tried to kick me in the nuts. Fifteen minutes later he was carried out on a stretcher, after lying on the floor for about 14 minutes and 59 seconds.

Forums that deal with fundamental beliefs are the only conversational venues that interest me, and they are a lot like scruffy country bars. I visit bars to go dancing with women, and since I'm better at it than most men there, I have more fun. I also attract resentment, which I try to diffuse at its first appearance, ideally by teaching other guys to dance and share my enjoyment. Can't always do that. There is always some dimwitted asshole who thinks he knows how to dance, nevermind that he leads like a thug and few women will dance with him twice. Such jerks won't learn and refuse to up their game. They react by bumping and pushing on the dance floor, and eventually pick themselves up off of it and want to go outside.

Blaggard is the same kind of person. Like socailists and Democrats, he operates from the crab-bucket mentality. He won't up his game, but persists in trying to drag others into the same bucket of half-assed beliefs where he rules the bottom-crabs. As an experiment, I informed him that I would be ignoring him, and did so. (Trying your proposal, months ago.) I did not even read his posts, but of course not not help observing their existence. When the "Pure Consciousness" thread we met on became an exercise in shmoozing, devoid of interesting content, I moved elsewhere. That blowfly Blaggard followed me everywhere, continuing to post insulting remarks. The moderators seem to value his presence on their forums (I've never posted a formal complaint about him), and I respect that. After all, what's a barn full of horses, without horseshit and blowflies? Philosophy is already an inbred system, and needs diversity. With diversity comes the ongoing challenges of balance.

So, if you want to participate usefully, instead of whining about personalities and their styles of interaction, how about contributing some ideas? Otherwise you're just a big horsefly trying to stake out a position of authority atop the prime turds.

[SpheresOfBalance]

One cannot play anothers inferior game while claiming to be superior. The truly superior shall say nothing, going about superior tasks, which is not playing inferior games!

In other words, those that play the game are equally suited for that game, or they wouldn't play it!

The last two halfwitted Republican candidates for US President played your chicken-shit game against the Democrat masters of cheap shots and lies. Look where it got them.

I've played a lot of games, and learned to play at the level of whomever's across the court, across from me at the line of scrimmage, at bat, or sitting at the same table. I've had a number of fistfights, and learned that the object of them is to throw punches. I prefer to play according to the rules, but will adopt the standards of my opponent if necessary. Last barfight I was in, in defense of someone, I started with a standard martial arts bow, during which my opponent tried to kick me in the nuts. Fifteen minutes later he was carried out on a stretcher, after lying on the floor for about 14 minutes and 59 seconds.

Forums that deal with fundamental beliefs are the only conversational venues that interest me, and they are a lot like scruffy country bars. I visit bars to go dancing with women, and since I'm better at it than most men there, I have more fun. I also attract resentment, which I try to diffuse at its first appearance, ideally by teaching other guys to dance and share my enjoyment. Can't always do that. There is always some dimwitted asshole who thinks he knows how to dance, nevermind that he leads like a thug and few women will dance with him twice. Such jerks won't learn and refuse to up their game. They react by bumping and pushing on the dance floor, and eventually pick themselves up off of it and want to go outside.

Blaggard is the same kind of person. Like socailists and Democrats, he operates from the crab-bucket mentality. He won't up his game, but persists in trying to drag others into the same bucket of half-assed beliefs where he rules the bottom-crabs. As an experiment, I informed him that I would be ignoring him, and did so. (Trying your proposal, months ago.) I did not even read his posts, but of course not not help observing their existence. When the "Pure Consciousness" thread we met on became an exercise in shmoozing, devoid of interesting content, I moved elsewhere. That blowfly Blaggard followed me everywhere, continuing to post insulting remarks. The moderators seem to value his presence on their forums (I've never posted a formal complaint about him), and I respect that. After all, what's a barn full of horses, without horseshit and blowflies? Philosophy is already an inbred system, and needs diversity. With diversity comes the ongoing challenges of balance.

So, if you want to participate usefully, instead of whining about personalities and their styles of interaction, how about contributing some ideas? Otherwise you're just a big horsefly trying to stake out a position of authority atop the prime turds.

Ouch that hurt, you've wounded me so, I think I'll just lay down and die!

You have heard the latest news right, Philosophy is the father of "all" science. Yes it's true, what do you know?

[Gee]

If you need to communicate to validate yourself, may I suggest that you PM a fellow who goes by the handle of Blaggard, and who posts regularly on PNow in complaint of alternative ideas. He won't like you either, but inasmuch as you are kindred spirits of similar intelligence but divergent viewpoints, you might get in some self-amusing arguments.

Even better, if you piss him off he'll become your personal troll and will follow you wherever you go on this forum.
Gl

Greylorn;

Blaggard wrote a post in this thread on April 6, then your post followed on April 26. Are you sure that he is following you around per the underlined above? That would be a pretty tricky way to follow, cause it kind of looks like you are following him.

G

[Blaggard]

Greyhorn will you stop insulting me.

You are by far the most remedial and uninformed braggart I have ever seen post on the internet. Your massive ego aside and your Napoleon complex aside, which clearly shows you are massively over compensating for one can only imagine you actually being a bit thick or having a tiny penis or something does not give you the right to abuse posters such as the above, or to mock them, you sanctimonious fraud.

Suffice to say keep me out of your inane rants about science keeping you down and how everyone except you the supra genius El Grey are being kept down by the fucking mole men or whatever other clearly vacuous garbage you want to vomit at people as if it makes any sense.

Thanks.

If you actually take yourself seriously, why not get an A average physics degree from a serious university (no, not DeVry) before embarrassing yourself further? Too much work? Unqualified? If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do so, think about a nice day job putting nuts on bolts, and spend some evenings in your local library studying Charles Fort. His are the kind of writings to which you might legitimately aspire. No mathematical expertise required, and his four books are each a fun read.

Physician heal thyself seeing as you don't have one numb nut.

Seriously is it a tiny penis? About the size of my little finger, or are we talking about a half mini gherkin sized deal?

I measure it in fractions of a meter, so as to keep the number low and not intimidate others. However, I'm heterosexual, so you'll need to look elsewhere. Have you considered professional counseling?

Sorry if the previous post offended you. You seem perpetually angry. This is often caused by resentment. Individuals of average intelligence often feel inferior when they attempt to converse with those who are 20 ticks or more higher in intelligence, and lash out reflexively in their resentful anger. No need for that. I was just playing matchmaker here, hoping to connect you with a friend who seems to think at your level, yet who takes a different position on things. You clearly need to argue. You should value someone who is happy to argue, and will do so at your level.

No I just can't stand people who are arrogant, they annoy me, it is for the same reason I attack SoB and anyone who claims to have all the answers.

Now go back to ignoring anything that challenges your tiny little world view you perpetual mushroom, and leave the real people to talk about real subjects that aren't the inane ramblings of an unqualified numpty.

Right I am going to err on the side of smaller than a peanut.

I have an IQ of 160 mate, I am studying for a degree in physics, and people who know me call me a bit of a know it all, calling me thick is rather amusing, stroll on you mushroom.

However I feel the Napoleon Complex thing has touched a nerve almost as if you recognise you are self agrandizing nobody in no field of science, and never will be known to anyone for anything.

I post arguments which you ignore, I don't throw insults at you unless you do at me, at least this time you have the balls to argue something even if it is mindless egotistical arm waving as usual. But then that is all well and good, there's nothing inherently wrong with a "fist fight" per se.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Who boasts about their money on here?