This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Origin
Pages:  2
My role model is Eternal Student/ES, who is always polite.ES is a gem no doubt, I on the other hand, am an old curmudgeon. [shrug]
Or as I like to say "U can always rely up/on ES, for a thoughtful reply".
It could be somebody young, or old, or not a real fizzy cyst/scientist, so why be rude, to them.I have been reading and and responding to PPs posts for maybe 5 years and my patience with his tripe has worn EXCEEDINGLY thin over that time.
« on: 17/09/2021 03:51:04 »
One clear aspect of the story is Yahweh likes shepherds and not farmers. It is not clear why that is though.
« on: 10/09/2021 23:47:25 »
« on: 09/09/2021 17:58:35 »
« on: 27/08/2021 19:14:41 »
Attached file: NonStandard-thinking.zip [Downloaded 0 times].It looks like the file didn't link properly.
The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student
« on: 26/08/2021 19:23:15 »
The dust particles ("elemental ether units" in my Michelson Morley analogy) are inertially insignificant relative to the motion of the car (photon.) MMX had been searching for a more readily-detectable interaction than that, in their assumption about how interaction with an ether medium would influence the passage of a light beam.The ether was what use to be thought of as the medium for light. That is the light waves were transmitted through the ether, just like water waves are transmitted through water.
The MM experiment was not looking for the interaction between light and the ether, they were looking for the movement of the ether relative to earth. The analogy with water would be that they were trying to see the current in the water that waves were moving through.
So it seems that this ether that you are talking about is not the ether that the earlier scientist were talking about. I think it would be much less confusing if you used a new term for your 'ether' since it is not the same as the generally accepted definition.
« on: 25/08/2021 11:12:41 »
Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity.Why is this in new theories? This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best. This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.
The following users thanked this post: Bored chemist
« on: 24/08/2021 12:25:59 »
I didn't say that electrons are not "natural." -What I tried to convey is that electrons appeared cosmically in natural settings, whereas muons, bosons, quarks, etc. are units that have been found under artificial technological settings (Physics Lab, accelerator/collider)That statement is wrong. The photons from the sun are bosons; do think those are 'not natural'? All subatomic particles are natural. Again you should be asking questions about physics if you are interested, not making random false statements.
in my Model, all quantum units have been originally formed starting from elemental ether unitsThat is just something you made up with zero evidence.
A universal underlying vibratory ether preceded a later creationally-designed superimposed quantum dynamic. In my Creation model, electrons were the key units creationally projected, toward an ether region, in order to chain-reactionally produce our quantum world of electrons, protons, neutrons, and atoms. -As electrons coursed through the ether, their vibrations aligned the vibrations of the elemental ether units, ,which in turn caused them to entrain with each other, which is how larger units like quantum units and atoms originally were formed, in what I referred to as a "natural" cosmic process to distinguish it from those units found using accelerator/colliders.That is just gibberish with some 'sciency' sounding words. It is meaningless.
It seems obvious at this point that you are not interested in science and just want to play pretend science, so I will leave you to it. If you ever decide to try and learn some science, start asking some questions.
« on: 22/08/2021 18:09:02 »
The electron I was referring to would be the kind physicists find occurring naturallyWell that shouldn't be a problem since every single electron is naturally occurring.
and is the smallest one found occurring naturallyThis also shouldn't be a problem since all electrons are the same size.
This "natural" group of energic units does not include so-called "particle units," like muons, bosons, and the like) produced in laboratory procedures or with accelerator/collider procedures.)Again this should be easy since bosons and muons are not electrons.
In my ether-based modelYou don't have a model.
It also seems you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Asking questions about physics might be the best route for you to take.
General Science / Re: Is science a religion.........well if not why is it defended as though it were« on: 25/07/2021 01:47:03 »
Go away troll.
Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Could there be more water in the earth than on the surface?« on: 13/07/2021 15:02:26 »
« on: 11/07/2021 15:48:56 »
I believe in my statement until proven otherwise. As the speed of sound has been analysed as it travels through different medians but the speed of movement has not been analysed nor has it been compared in any scientific way and the more I think about how it could be analysed the more complicated it becomes so good luck if anyone wishes to try.Your belief is wrong. This has been analyzed, experiments have been done. If you had a 1000 ft steel rod and smacked one end with a ram, it would take 1/10 of a second before the other end would move, that is a fact your belief is irrelevant.
Pages:  2