0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Couldn't read the paper, but I don't need to.This computer is not infinite- I can pick it up.
I'm sorry, but your paper is littered with logical fallacies. I see non-sequiturs, false dichotomies, and an ignorance of the way that chemistry works. Go ahead and try to produce this "white gas" you hypothesize. If you can do that, then your speculation will surely catch the interests of scientists.
This is a very ignorant unhelpful reponse. Is this what kind of help people give on this site. How you got you're rating is beyond me.
If there are non-sequiturs, false dichotomies it doesn;t matter.
Furthermore, the gas can be created as easy as i say it can and it does prove what i say it proves. It's already been created by people i've collaborated with this on but i now need more people.
The document says you have to be open-minded, you must be one of those close minded arrogant people. If you can help me contact some people higher up in the science field, please do, otherwise don't reply back, better yet, delete your replhy because it is crap.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgDkabLXWPCqh2goM8OXTp2oO2s1 [nofollow][/color][/font][/color]See if this link works.[/size]
I myself am a scientist
you therefore have “Infinite” things because the universe is expanding
so everything spawning from numbers has only ever got two options and these options are “Right or Wrong”
the number system is flawed. It only caters for the 100% Right/Wrongand it does not cater for the 0.0000001 ->99.999999% which is where all answers actually reside.
when you add infinity to infinity what do you get? The answer is simple, you get an Infinitely bigger answer.
It critically matters. If one has to use logical fallacies in order to come to a given conclusion, then that conclusion cannot be trusted. As one example, you say that humans can have any one of an infinite number of thoughts in any one second, so you conclude that the odds of a person thinking about anything at one time is one-in-infinity. This is incorrect, because (1) human minds have limited knowledge, so there are not an infinite number of things they could potentially be thinking about, and (2) human thought is not random, but is strongly influenced by recent events in their lives.We are significantly more likely to think about some subject matters than others in particular situations.If a random number pops into your head, it is significantly more likely to be a simple, often-encountered number than a very large, rarely encountered number. People are going to think about the number 70 much more often than they will 1,330,495, for example. So your false dichotomy of "1-in-infinity chance vs. divine intervention" is based on flawed reasoning. Sometimes coincidences do happen.
Get the gas examined by chemists and physics in order to verify your claims. Anyone can claim anything on the Internet. If I see you on the news for discovering some amazing new field of chemistry, then I'll know that you've found something interesting. According to existing chemistry knowledge, mixing hydrogen with hydrogen at standard conditions will not result in anything but hydrogen (except a bit of helium now and then due to decay of the tritium isotope). Get your gas analyzed by a spectrometer. There is your test. If the spectrometer shows just hydrogen and other, known, contaminant gases, then it will falsify your hypothesis. If it shows something never seen before, then it is worthy of further investigation.
I'm guessing you see all people who disagree with you as being closed-minded. Sorry, but that's not how that works. An open-minded person is willing to observe and evaluate evidence, a closed-minded person isn't. I actually did look at your paper. After seeing that your evidence and logic is lacking, I see no reason to accept your conclusions. It's not a good idea to accept a conclusion when it is easy to point out flaws in the reasoning used to get there.If you think that makes me a bad person, then that's not something I can help.
in the beggining, yes of course but as you grow, it keeps growing infinitely.
Also i'm talking, not just about thoughts, i'm talking about permutations of your knowledge to produce thoughts. The subconscious contains unbounded information but only the odd thoughts pop into the consciousness usually going tosleep but during the day as well. Although conscious thoughts are strongly influenced by recent activity you mention, they are not always. People often project their minds forwardsin what you might consider dream-like thoughts. So, you are only looking at one aspect of thinking and you are trying to bound it. For someone to think "70 dogs", this is not athought bound by recent events. Think about it, it's impossible, so therefore this means, this thought is from the subconsious and it has randmoly been pushed from the subconsciousinto the conscious, thereby making it a random thought. Given the size of the consciousness and much bigger subconsciousness and the fact they both constantly grow in terms of whatthey contain and the thought is random, this is therefore 1 randmom thought in any infinite number of thoughts. So put simply you say "human minds have limited knowledge" has nobearing on what i'm saying which is a random permutation of information popping in to your head at a given point in time not related to recent activities. So to re-emphasizethe odds are 1 in Infinity.
Also you are forgetting that the thought has to combine with the object itself. i.e. what is the likelyhood that object with that number will be at the same position you are at? Finally, you are forgetting the object needs to be within your vicinity at the exact same time, or within a couple of seconds of time. So, thereforeyour odds are A RANDOM SUBCONSCIOUS THOUGHT times YOU AND THE OBJECT AT THE SAME POSITION AT THE SAME TIME.
This is Infinity times billions/millions times billions/millions.
Given all of this, the odds are beyond numbers, hence beyond people, hence beyond science, hence beyond the universe, hence divine intervention.
Plus, numbers themselves are unbounded as you can see in the proof.
Thank you, that is exactly what i am trying to do. As mentioned i need to take a collaborative approach on this whereby people in wider science take this, produce the gas as i did and verify it. I'm not looking to be on tv, i'm looking to do what i'm supposed to which is help people and the planet in the best way and fastest way possible. Is there anyone you could forward this on to and put me in contact with that i could work with on this? Spectroscopy is amazing but as you'll read in my post it is using external stimulation to produce a bounded result. It is not giving a picture of the atom in it's natural state. The proof that it is a different element and a more pure element is the way in which the gas burns. It's completely different to hydrogen. Yes, you can't see it with todays technology but you will be able to some day. Just because it might hit the same area on the spectrum in spectroscopy does not mean it's the same element/atom because the rnge on which elements can land is always going to be bound by the spectrum of light. The fact it is a different element/atom can only be seen through behaviour. Also, through rationale as presented in the paper. Think about it, the world of things being constituent of compounds of 116 elements is a probable immpossibility. The electron microscope is the best we have now but you cannot see the level of detail we need to be able to. In the future, we will have this technology and all will be able to see what i'm taking about.
You are guessing wrong. I welcome criticism, as a scientist you need to be able to welcome criticism, accept it where necessary or defend your work through counter argument showingreason, rationale and logic. What you gave in your first response was a 3 line answer with absolutely no indication of what you were disputing. Any scientist has no other optionbut to assume this type answer is someone being close-minded and only scanning the document. I appreciate you think the logic is lacking, but i am of course free to disagree andi do feel i have given a sufficient answer to further qualify the logic. Whether you accept it or not, i don't mind and i welcome any further criticism you may have as long as itis not like your original close-minded response which was basically "I don't like it.". After reading this response, i appreciate you have read it but there was no evidence inyour existing reply to support that so whether you did read it the first time, i can only take your word. "If you think this makes me a bad person...". I never said you were a badperson. I said you were ignorant and dismissive which is what you were. This doesn't make someone a bad person. I for one can be like that from time to time and as you stated above,when i see this "I call it like it is."
I'd very much like you too comeback with anything else and if you could help me to contact people you think may be able to work with me to validate this and get to market that wouldbe great because this innovation will help the world. So can you help?
This is the first claim in the documentPlease indicate your qualifications and experience as a scientist.
The causes of the expansion of the universe are a bit of a mystery today.- It is possible that the universe contains infinite matter. - But a universe containing finite matter can also expand.So the logic here is flawed.
Godel showed that there is another option: "I don't know", or indeed "Nobody knows".
The field of probability actually focusses on this range of numbers.
I am afraid this is incorrect.Cantor showed that when you add infinity to infinity, you get (the same type of) infinity. This is easily shown by the illustration of Hilbert's Hotel.
We have a finite life span and therefore can only learn a limited number of things, subconsciously or not.
(1) Subconscious knowledge is not unbounded. There are a finite number of unconscious bodily functions that the subconscious mind controls (reflexes, breathing, heart rate, perspiration... ). There are also a finite number of events that can occur in a person's life that can influence them subconsciously (trauma, conditioning, memories... ). In either case, the amount of information contained in the subconscious must be limited.
(2) Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as a truly random thought? It's quite easy to demonstrate a correlation between certain thoughts and certain stimuli (you are likely to think about food when you smell food or when you are hungry). On the other hand, I don't know how you could possible demonstrate that a thought has no cause at all. Subconscious thoughts are indeed influenced by outside events as well. Scents in particular are known to trigger memories, for example.
In order to calculate this, you would need to know the probability of a given thought occurring at a particular time for a given person (which isn't 1 in infinity for multiple reasons, especially given the fact that different people often have the same kinds of thoughts and the same person can have the same thought at different times), the probability of an object with some observable characteristic related to that thought being within the visual range of the person (there isn't only one object in the world with the number 70 written on it but there are also a lot of dogs and pictures of dogs in the world too), the number of people who could potentially have this experience (many millions) and the period of time over which you are measuring this (it becomes more likely the longer you wait).
Infinity multiplied by any finite number is still infinity
The chemical properties of a substance are directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. The absorption spectrum is likewise directly tied to its electron configuration and electron energy levels. If your white gas has chemical properties that are different from hydrogen, then it must also have a different electron configuration and energy levels from hydrogen. This would inevitably be revealed by spectroscopy. You can't have a change in chemical behavior without also having a change in absorption characteristics. So spectroscopy would work as a test.
Unfortunately, I don't know any scientists personally. You might be able to get somewhere if you contact some chemistry professors at a college near you.
The best way to promote an idea to scientists is to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that those scientists read. The next best thing would be to present at a conference attended by your desired audience. (I would caution that the treatise linked to in the OP would not be well-received in its current form)As for the content of the treatise, I think Kryptid has given a fair and reasonable critique. I don't want to pile on additional criticism, but I do want to communicate that I share Kryptid's evaluation. There are some interesting points in there, but there are some serious flaws in the logic, math, and chemistry presented. One would do well to remember the difference between the abstract (logic and math) and the tangible (chemistry, physics, etc.). The former is often very useful for describing the essence of the latter, but there are many absurdities that arise when treating the abstract as tangible (many of these crop up within the text of this treatise).Finally, infinity is a very tricky concept, and even the most brilliant mathematicians can get themselves tied up in knots when using it. I would recommend the book, "Infinity and the Mind," which helped me greatly when I was struggling with some of these concepts.
Quote from: allyoop1234 on 29/06/2017 10:45:40Thanks. I tried updating with the link andit still put the same thing in front.I know. You have to have a certain number of posts under your belt before your links work; 20 I think.I agree with the comments that argue against various parts of your paper, but do think that once you get comfortable with the concept of infinity when it comes to cosmology, you are the right track. Infinite space, time, and energy are the three infinities that I like to apply to the cosmology of the universe. You have not gone that far. Notice that if you invoke those three infinites, you have a universe that has always existed. That possibility did not appear as an option to you, but do you acknowledge it is another option?
Thanks. I tried updating with the link andit still put the same thing in front.
...Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.
We do not have a finite life span.
Again, life goes to afterlife as does your subconscious thereby it is infinite. Never mind that, the subconsciousness records near everything you ever see,feel,hear or otherwise sense and experience, hence why hypnotists and pschologists can bring you back to your darkest deepest thoughts that you have long let vacate your consciousness. Therfore, even on earth the capacity is unbounded until you die and because you can't but a number on the capacity you can only say it is infinite for any given purpose. But main point, you have an infinite afterlife so you have an infinite subconsciousness. You might be an ahteist though?
The large majority of people, myself included have been in a scenario where by an "..Idea, just pops into there head". Whether this is what correlates for a given person i do not know. People cam be thinking about random things maybe in response to ceratin things at times like you say, but even at that, what is the likelihood that anyone would respond to anything and have that drive their thoughts down a specific angle. For example, if i watch a programme that's about dogs and there are 70 dogs and then a few weeks/months later after my brain has interpreted millions of other thoughts and stimuli then i just happen to see a dog that makes me think about the 70 dogs and at that exact same time there happens to be a sign with 70 on it? The likelyhood is the same. You're talking about billions upon billions of thoughts before and after seeing tv and the event. The likelyhood that it would draw you back to that one thought is infinitely unlikely never mind seeing the dog to trigger it, then seeing the sign, and it to happen quick enough for your brain to interpret it all. This is impossible without assistance, there are too many thoughts and too many permutations of thoughts.I of course agree that thoughts are triggered by outside events i.e smells, but even at that, if you smell something that triggers your memory of a person and then that person just happens to appear on television or walk around the corner at pretty much the same time, tht would be infinite to one again. Actually, that's even way further out. You're talking about the likelyhood of that smell out of all smells, combined with the likelyhood it would actually bring you back to that 1 in a billion thought, times the likelyhood the person it reminded you of would be in the position they are in for you to see them, times the likelyhood it would all happen within those exact number of seconds, perhaps 2. The probable odds are beyond numbers therefore it is the divine.I'm enjoying this, thanks for the response.Forget about all people. Just one person. What you actually said above compounds it higher as i've shown. If you see 70 dogs on the television then a month later, you're in the passenger seat of a car, a journey you do regularly and you flip over a page in something you are reading and you see dogs in a picture and and it instantly triggers the thought about the 70 dogs and at that exact second you look out the window and you see the number 70 on a sign! This is even more ridiculous. Firstly, the initial thought has to register in a way that it becomes meaningful. i.e. i watch suits on tv, i forget everything about it, 2 hours later....Secondly you have to be reading something that has dogs in it...i.e there is any uncountable number of things the newspaper could be broadcasting daily, yet that day it happens to be dogs and you happen to be at that exact part of the paper...Thirdly, the dogs above all the other information in the paper has to register in away so as to bring you back to that thought about 70 dogs i.e. it could bring you back to dogfish, dog fights, kennels, lassie or any countless number of things a picture of dogs could bring you back to...Fourthly, you have to look out the window at that same point in time....Fifthly, you have to notices the number 70 and it has to combine the whole way back through those thoughts and interactions for you to realise it has just happened....Although, i know it is infinite to 1 let's say at the very least this is millions times millions times millions, the number is still too big for this to even happen once in the history of time, let alone it happen to you in your life.Furthermore, as you'll read in the paper the number system is flawed and the only number that exists in reality is "Infinity" so the thought is in essence bouncing off infinity.
Ok, maybe the divine is hard for scientists don't believe in the afterlife because they don't see it. The coin analogy is a poor one, of course tails means tails and heads means heads. That's a physical object. What i'm talking about here is rationale, reason and logic. There is no scientific answer for this, through deduction this means it is above people and science and if it is above science it is above the universe because we can't explain it in the universe of things before us hence the only thing it can be is above the universe. If it's above the universe as a rationale and reasonable human a scientist would have to look at and accept what billions of other people all over world through the history of time have captured as being "Beyond the Universe". This information being the first information stating what it is would then have to be scientifically disproven for scientists to be right about what they are saying is beyond the universe. Perhaps in time this would happen, but not until science comes up with an answer. That said, to tell you to truth, they never will come up with a different answer because the divine did kick off the universe and they are there but of course people need reason and rationale.
Let's put it short, just like a lot of scientists, if you do have logicial evidence to imply there is some answer other than your answer, you have to accept that answer until a time comes whereby you can provide a better answer. You'll find if you look around in wider science a lot of people are going back questioning everything in science, they are not relying on the past. All science needs to do this. Religion has accepted science largely speaking, it never happened the other way even though it is us scientists who are the one's playing the divine with external stimuli to produce perfect results.
There is no such thing as finite in the universe of things. Everything is degrading/growing/changing from one form to another. Numbers are the only finite thing. There is no such thing as perfect either in the universe but the number 1 is perfect. This means they are flawed. This means they shouldn't exist. Also, when you read the proof about the number system you will see the Infinity inside the number thereby meaning they are unbounded by nature. But in there current form because they are the only thing we have that is perfect, which the universe of things can't attain, they are therefore super-natural and the people who guided introduction of them were the divine.
Ok, that's good then. If a different flame would result in a different result on the spectroscopy well then it should be different. But if the same pure white flame ends up in the same place as hydrogen well then spectroscopy is missing something. Thanks
Thanks, would you reccommend any other sites that may have scientists frequenting them?
Quote from: allyoop1234 on 28/06/2017 23:53:12...Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.It should go in the trash can.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/06/2017 18:41:49Quote from: allyoop1234 on 28/06/2017 23:53:12...Please read, be open-minded and give me a steer on where you think it should go.It should go in the trash can.Get back in your box ugly!...Noone wants to hear from a Boring rude chemist!..
Even considering an eternal afterlife, the amount of time that a person has lived up to the point when they notice a 70 mph sign is finite.
I'm a Christian, but that's not relevant. The amount of time you spend on Earth is finite and thus the amount of knowledge that your subconscious could possibly attain on Earth is finite as well.
This whole line of reason is self-contradictory. If you don't think that numbers exist (or that all numbers are equal to infinity), then probability calculations become meaningless and any assertions made about them become meaningless as well. You also can't say that 1 is 100% perfect because "100%" would have no meaning.
According to the reasoning in your own paper, your own argument is flawed because you claim that nothing which is perfect can exist. This would mean that there is no such thing as a perfect argument, thus all arguments have flaws (including yours). So you either have to conclude that your arguments are flawed, or that some things which are flawless do indeed exist.
That depends entirely upon how good the evidence is. "I don't know" is also perfectly acceptable
Your "proof" can be disproved easily. If numbers are infinite, then you could place an infinite amount of water into any container or put an infinite amount of information on any computer. You can't. Numbers are finite.
(1) Please demonstrate that the number 1 is perfect.(2) Please demonstrate that perfect things cannot exist.
It won't miss it. Why don't you make a video recording of you burning your white gas sample and then comparing it to a sample of hydrogen burning? If the two are truly different, then you should be able to demonstrate this on the video.Your claimed method of producing white gas shouldn't work either, because infinite hydrogen plus infinite hydrogen is not "infinitely purer" hydrogen. It's just infinite hydrogen, like what you started with. Adding infinities doesn't get you anything other than infinity. You can't make a "bigger" infinity by adding or multiplying infinities.