New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE

page: 12
26
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


It's a poorly explained review designed for former grad students of physics and engineering, rather than a dummies guide for the illiterate. I'm looking for the latter, considering I don't hold any degrees in the area, and hence I don't have any background to say, "I should be looking for this," or "This is found in that area which is called this other thing."

I'm a third grader when it comes to this stuff.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 



I CAN MATHEMATICALLY PROVE THE DIVINE NOW


I'm sorry, which part of this was I lying about? Too late to edit your OP, now you're stuck with a promise you apparently can't keep. And as BluFenix (I think that's who it was) pointed out, your theory has already been debunked in other threads because your premise begs the assumption that photons behave according to a nature they don't possess.

Don't call me a liar, or slow, because it's insulting. If I'm provided with the materials and I still have difficulty, I will admit my lack of expertise and kindly request assistance in the area. But I do not lie, and I can prove that you did.

In fact, I just did. Unless...you have something to show for your claims now?


New Quantum Theory Discovered "GODDESS WAVE" could prove existance of GOD/GODDESS/ONE


And that math quote up there at the top of my post - that should go right along with the title I just quoted. You promised a quantum theory using mathematical formulae to prove the existence of divinity. You made the promise, I came here expecting to see something with substance.

All I got was pictures with no explanation. And if I look back over your previous posts, I see a whole lot of haw humming and hedging going on. Don't call me a liar - EVER. I have no reason to lie, but you've given yourself plenty of reasons in this thread.

Don't blame me for that.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


....this is bullcrap. You, sir, just used the work someone else did after you made your claim to substantiate your claim then call me an idiot and a liar?

You're lucky you have a wingman willing to take the flack. You wouldn't be able to pull this off at a physics conference, I tell ya what. Oh, and have you tried that theory on the more credible boards? Probably not, considering you didn't even DRAW THE THEORY. Taking credit for someone else's work as though you planned it all along.


Thanks, tkidkp. I'll give your work a closer look later, as soon as I figure out how to unflag this thread.
edit on 24-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





I'm a third grader when it comes to this stuff.



Stop pretending you know what is going on and get off my thread. Did you even stop to have a look if there was anyone else on your half canoe. I gave you plenty of chance to leave gracefully but now your going to have to be the posterboy dunce who has an opinion about something they dont understand.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Yes, that is what I am asking as I do not know what would happen in that case.


www.physicsforums.com...

Physics experts dont know what might happen but you do right? Yeeaaaaaa sure buddy.

The physicsforum thread is going well
edit on 24-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Cauliflower
 


One of the new panthion is of course "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Worship of said being is quite prevalent in my local area.


Wanted to clarify this post.

It is a joke.

It is also a serious comment about religous freedom and idealogical dogma



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


Please comment on this:


Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by BluFenix
 


Needs further explanation. Rather than think about half a photon we need to look at groups of photons in shuttered systems and start thinking about other properties like polarity.

There are more detailed links I'm sure but this is what they loaded at the top of the Google search engine.

Los Alamos quantum system



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by primalfractal
 


Please comment on this:


Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by BluFenix
 


Needs further explanation. Rather than think about half a photon we need to look at groups of photons in shuttered systems and start thinking about other properties like polarity.

There are more detailed links I'm sure but this is what they loaded at the top of the Google search engine.

Los Alamos quantum system



Great link. Cauli explains things well. Good contributions to our futher understanding.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
I had an idea for a way to do the experiment. I guess it might be wrong and I was wanting someone to point out why please.

Spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers.


There seems to be no limit to what you can do with a laser. Lasers have been used to move microscopic particles, to trap and cool atoms, and even to stretch biological cells. Now a team of physicists has used lasers to set individual molecules spinning -- so fast that the molecules get pulled apart



Villeneuve's team looked at what happens at very high rates of rotation, so fast that the chlorine molecules spin 6 thousand billion times a second.

www.nature.com...


Molecules that fluoresce are usually very stiff, stable molecules. Stable molecules do not usually lose energy through rotation, and lose less energy through vibration than unstable molecules. This allows the molecules to store the energy long enough to emit it as a photon.

wikis.lawrence.edu...




edit on 24-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)


?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Looks interesting, keep up the good work! As far as the top theoretical quantum physicists not arguing with you being a good thing? I disagree. What is worse than them not arguing with you is them not giving any comment whatsoever, a snub if you will is worse, it's what happens in the scientific community when UFO is mentioned. But I do hope some expert quantum physicist does argue with it, only with feedback can a theory gain more credence.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 





Please explain why you posted that.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 




Looks interesting, keep up the good work!


Thanks, your comment and others like it have helped me a lot with this.



As far as the top theoretical quantum physicists not arguing with you being a good thing? I disagree. What is worse than them not arguing with you is them not giving any comment whatsoever, a snub if you will is worse, it's what happens in the scientific community when UFO is mentioned.


True. When I started this second thread the physicsforum thread had been stalled for a few weeks with one very negative answer.



But I do hope some expert quantum physicist does argue with it, only with feedback can a theory gain more credence.


It would be good to spread the idea more.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


Okay the real tree of life has 12 circles to it. So guess what... you are wrong.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Either I'm being ignored or my new idea for a way to do the experiment is good. It's been 5 days since I posted it on both threads and no response. I think I would have been corrected by now if I was wrong.

It sounds good to me. Rotational speed of six thousand billion times a second must be near light speed. Quasar fast.

Rotate fluoro molecule with lasers.

The flourescent molecule is like a tiny spinning laser in the photo for the experiment. It shoots out photon wave packets.

Seems good.
edit on 30-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ringlejames
 


Yea, it's not finished yet. I know there has to be 12 sephiroth. I've only done 2/3 of one and have plans for 7, so I can make 2/3 of 7 now and still have to work out the rest and then there is the music to play as well which I have ideas for (Rose Chapel or caledar code) but also havn't worked out.

I dreamed a chair or throne with arm rests, so 12 cymatic vortexs/gyros of 3 circles each for a total of 36 dragon scales.

Had no time to do more lately but each new piece has come to me when needed so far.

Sorry for not being wrong, you can be assured I am sometimes and can check example earlier in thread if necessary



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Can you please point me to an article, paper, post or whatever that has the mathematical proof written out, so I can review it? Thanks.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 




I CAN MATHEMATICALLY PROVE THE DIVINE


Sorry if this appears misleading. I said "I can", not "I have mathematically proven the divine". I only discovered this theory a couple of months ago so of course it will take time to do the maths.

I am not proficient at this type of math so it will take me longer than others. If anyone including yourself would like to help with the math, please PM me.

If you are thinking there is no math for the theory please discuss it with the physicists supporting this thread. They can explain it better than me. tgidkp on the thread he did to show there is math for my theory www.abovetopsecret.com...
Arbitrageur is another quantum physicist who has assured there is indeed math and we have been discussing this here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


I agree with you about BB being bunk and was wondering what you think happened?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I have a completely original experiment and theory. Curving light waves.

No one on the planet, including physics experts, know what will happen in the experiment.

As far as I have heard my explanation is the only logical explanation for my experiment.

This effect happens whenever light is extruded from a moving source (all the time). The wave “holds” onto the source and physically curves through space as it comes out, making curving vector potential, possible fractional spin and virtual particles.

I think this shows the wave actually exists and is not just mathematical. That the wave exists physically in the ether or dimension-n.

The thing that collapses is obviously real and this experiment could show it.

I think this theory could legitimately prove D-n exists because I predict the wave will move physically with the barrel. That the wave is attached to the barrel until extruded. How could a non-existent mathematical wave move in perfect sync with the source and produce a physical effect i.e. the particle and fractional spin.
A mathematical non-existent wave would have no reason to move with the barrel and certainly couldn’t make anything spin.

There is plenty of solid research from science and religion pointing towards the existence of the ether. Logic says that it must be there and so does my new theory.


Firm evidence for the discovery of a Higgs particle has now been officially announced. This means the "Higgs ether" exists. But did not Einstein tell us that there is no ether? Poor Albert is getting punched hard these days. We just survived the faster than light neutrino hysteria, and now this.

Higgs Dicovery Rehabilitating Despised Einstien Ether
edit on 14-11-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join