1

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the mystery killer of the Bermuda Triangle killer waves?

« on: 30/11/2019 08:51:18 »

The vast expanses of the oceans plow a huge number of tidal waves.
When tidal waves collide with the coastline of the continents, tides are formed.
When tidal waves collide in the open ocean, killer waves form.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer Waves
The aforesaid can be easily checked if two liter cans are simultaneously thrown into the bath with water (the distance between the lying cans is 10 cm).
When a tidal wave collides, the resulting killer wave foams and a larger wave pulls through a smaller wave somewhat.
You can create a killer wave with a height of 0.3 meters and a duration of 0.5 seconds, if two divers at the same time jump a "bomb" into a pond from a height of 2 meters (the distance between jumping 3 meters).
If you simultaneously hit two tablespoons in a cup of water and a "killer wave" is formed there.
The height of the killer wave can be calculated by the following formula: H = T1 • ​​T2,
where T is the kinetic energy of the tidal wave.
https://images.app.goo.gl/fNxSM5ZBGN5evNQi9
The mechanism of formation of the tidal hump in the river and killer waves in the oceans is similar and the height of the tidal hump in the river depends on the kinetic energy of the current in the river, and the kinetic energy of the tidal wave.

The place of the possible penetration of the killer waves can be predicted from the circuit maps and, accordingly, plot routes.
An approaching killer wave or tsunami can be partially neutralized by creating a series of oncoming waves, torpedoes or shells.
If two tidal waves do not collide with each other, then they move freely across the ocean at a speed of about 100 km / h and they are called Rossby waves.
Three sisters is a tidal wave collision with three storm waves.

Tidal waves colliding with storm waves create killer waves and are the main cause of ship wrecks.
Knowing the tidal schedule, one should accordingly choose the time and route of movement in the seas and oceans.

https://goo.gl/images/icF4zf
The map shows the areas of the most frequent occurrence of killer waves.

https://images.app.goo.gl/DZWdKoRxvJ214xWP6
The animation shows how a killer wave forms in the Bermuda Triangle as a result of a tidal wave collision.
The clocks installed on the animation show that killer waves in the Bermuda Triangle are generated twice a day, at 12 and at 24 o’clock.
Based on the animation shown, you can create a calendar for the formation of killer waves, not only for future years but also for previous ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle

'Killer waves' are most certainly not the main cause of shipwrecks. The majority of ships are wrecked due to running aground.

Pretty much everything else in the above is wrong too. Why waste time posting this nonsense?

2

New Theories / Re: Killing time dilation

« on: 29/03/2019 23:23:30 »

I have provided the evidence that

No.
You have provided squiggles.

I quit , forum days over . cya .

Wish I had run a sweepstake on you claiming to quit once again... Your standard MO along with playing the victim, calling others trolls despite claiming to be 'the king of trolls' etc... Just tedious.

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: I asked top 500 physics professors a question, no one answered, why?

« on: 27/03/2019 22:02:16 »

Light speed in vacuum space has never been measured. The latest time scientists measure light speed in air was 1926.

I suggested them to use MIT tech to measure light speed in vacuum glass bottle, hope someone search for the truth.

MIT had a video show off their trillion frame camera filming laser pause passing through a water bottle, in very slow motion.

Use same technology they can easily measure light speed in a vacuum glass bottle, I wrote to the tech team, they didn't reply. Don't understand why. 

Probably because they get hundreds of such emails from assorted loonies..

4

New Theories / Re: NFEU MODEL

« on: 28/08/2018 21:25:05 »

Which proves that you are a mathematically illiterate fool.

I don't mean to sound rude, but obviously you do not understand if you think the maths is meaningless and illiterate.  The maths works with my conceptual envision I have explained with theory .  The NFEU model does not ignore present Physics, to the contrary the model is based on some of the present physics such as Coulombs law, space-time and Dirac. I think you are possibly not considering Alpha or Beta point energy particle manifestations , popping into and out of existence , the dissipate resulting in dispersion to 0 value.

This is like a child saying 'you can't speak to my imaginary friend because they use a language that only I can understand'.

5

New Theories / Re: NFEU MODEL

« on: 27/08/2018 20:49:33 »

If my notion is so wrong, then why isn't there a single attempt to falsify my notions? 

Because people have learned by past experience it is just pigeon chess.

6

New Theories / Re: Ok, lets rumble, I challenge the world.

« on: 16/04/2018 22:47:13 »

I can correct this and they ignore this.  Space is not expanding, field density increase is happening ...

ok?

No, it's not OK, not last because you never managed to explain what you mean by "field density increase is happening".
You were unable to say what "field density " is.

Had you forgotten?

I am not giving it all away, that would be stupid and nobody will give me a book offer.

What? For a colouring in book?

7

New Theories / Re: Is it possible to quantize gravity?

« on: 13/04/2018 15:30:24 »

attached is a pdf presentation proposing a hypothesis that tries to quantize gravity

1+1=2

Couldn't be more simpler

Whereas you stated on your N Field thread that:

A rain drop fell into my cup, a second raindrop fell into my cup

1+1 = 1

Only in your dreams are you smarter than me

At least try to to keep your attention seeking consistent.

8

New Theories / Re: The dark planet theory?

« on: 03/11/2017 15:21:01 »

This is known as trying to blag it.

Of course, I am trying to blag it and be a fake scientist, however I do understand in my own head what the maths stands for. Hf is the normal representation of high frequency and S is normally entropy , the surface/volume of a sphere is standard maths and the greater than and less than signs are standard.

I had already worked out before that :

K_max =  at the speed of light c.

So by blagging it, I am just hoping to impress somebody such as a scientist who might give me a hand with my notions and help correct my maths if they are at error to begin with.

Is that the answer you wanted?

normal representation of high frequency means what? Can you explain the concept in simple terms? If not how is somebody going to help you otherwise? Why do you think you need maths to explain a theory? By trying to blag it you will not get anybody to take you seriously because it makes it patently obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

9

New Theories / Re: Proving the existence of alien life!

« on: 30/10/2017 21:24:18 »

I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.

First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.

Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.  I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.

Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/

10

New Theories / Re: Are all atoms transparent?

« on: 05/10/2017 21:08:51 »

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

11

New Theories / Re: Is ADHD , Adults don't have defence?

« on: 03/10/2017 19:52:07 »

You think it is okay to question established theories but it is not okay to question your theories.

Not really, the only theory of mine that I know is true , is my theory and definition on time. My theory does not exclude a ''time dilation''.   My theory just changes the semantics to a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.
My N-field theory is all based on present theory and physics. That I think could be true. 
My ideas of visible darkness and visible light, darkness being a property of an object, based on observations. 

There is not that much I say is an axiom.  If I say  it is an axiom then I guarantee that it is the last answer in a line of answers.

Objective parenting is where our children don't believe in fairy tales and learn reality at an early age. Where subjective parenting is Santa clause and likes. 
There is a lot more to it than that but that is the basic principle. In a simple example imagine a child watching a horror movie.  Now that child will be scared if they were taught by subjective parenting,  Where in objective parenting the child knows it is actors in make-up etc and is not actually scary.  They know what the real ''monsters'' of the world are.

But you keep going on about your 'theories' as though they are and when you are called out you accuse people of trolling.
You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not. It is based on a suoerficial skimming of them and then misapplying them or not understanding them. For example when I questioned you use of dielectric you said 'Secondly I know what dielectric means, well I thought I did until I just checked  up on it.  I swear wiki keeps changing, never mind' which betrays you just slinging in stuff you think sounds scientific without knowing what it means and your generally sloppy approach. You then bang on about the ether - which does not exist and this has been shown so is not part of 'current theories and physics' - you even pointed out it cant be detected.

Likewise your theories on time. And light and dark. And transparent atoms. You dont care though do you? As long as you get attention and tie other people's time up.

12

New Theories / Re: Are all atoms transparent?

« on: 28/09/2017 22:43:43 »

I am looking at field strength density, not material density.

The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.

I am looking at field strength density, not material density.

The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?

Then perhaps field density has nothing to do with it and I need to go down a different path of thinking and research.

I would of thought the denser the medium , the more difficult it is for light to permeate through.  You have a point glass is denser than air, back to the drawing board on my energy research.

Why not base your research on actually learning what people have already found out.

What else do you think I do?  I research, learn something.  If that something as questions I need to ask about it, then I ask.  Like with the blue sky.   I 'see' no reason why the blue sky is blue ''your'' way.  To me a scattering means ''spread'' out?

No you dismiss all research, all knowledge as 'book learning'. This is not research - quite the opposite. You then tell people who have vastly more knowledge than you that they are wrong, without even having learned the basics of a subject. Research is defined as 'The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.'. You merely engage in sloppy thinking and misplaced speculation.