[guest39538]

As title?

[guest39538]

Why cant a question be true?  I have asked a question and you have moved into that cant  be true. a simple no may have done. That is rather confusing.

[Colin2B]

Quantum singularity is an invention of science fiction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity

[guest39538]

Thank you for pointing that out ,  however I was told in another thread don't call my visual idea in my head a ''naked singularity'' , so I called it a quantum singularity.  But never mind mate I am going to quit now after writing loads of my new theory , for another forum to ''gang'' up on me to drive me out of the forum. 
Including several members off here under different user names. Clearly the trolls ''own'' these forums, and the mods are biased by the majority .   There is a specific group of these ''trolls'' , about 4-6 of them , who all seemingly know each other and crash threads, I think these individuals aim to hamper and disrupt science always.  They have done this for the entire time I  have been on the net. 

[Colin2B]

Looking at your description in the other thread I can't really see what it is. You could call it a Box Singularity until you've worked out more of the theory.

Although I occasionally look at other forums (see you there by the way), I only belong to one other which you know about. Haven't recognised other members from here, but have seen a group who frequent other forums. Whether you think they are ganging up on you, or just trying to point out the truth really depends on your point of view and how much knowledge you have of physics.

Have fun with your theory.

[guest39538]

Looking at your description in the other thread I can't really see what it is. You could call it a Box Singularity until you've worked out more of the theory.

Although I occasionally look at other forums (see you there by the way), I only belong to one other which you know about. Haven't recognised other members from here, but have seen a group who frequent other forums. Whether you think they are ganging up on you, or just trying to point out the truth really depends on your point of view and how much knowledge you have of physics.

Have fun with your theory.

I already know my theory in full. I have some of it already written.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28849-stange-claim-from-a-physics-and-math-forum-thread/



These people colin are professional trolls, they dont discuss science, they insult, repeat posting wiki links because deep down they know little, all new ideas they come down and slam, they dont discuss the idea, they just post links. 


I can prove the band-width of light propagating through space is 0. By using  the lorentz transformations and area contraction ,


true I am not a scientist, but I certainly can think.


This is my last effort to get somebodies attention. 


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Disclaimer, not for copy .   

You would need me to explain it in full and I need science to put my  maths in.

I do not give my permission to anyone to copy this diagram or use this diagram without my permission.  I have also intentionally left some bits out.

SR and the lorentz transformations account for angle and not for the linearity or width of light. 
  The band-width  narrows to a box singularity.


cgi basic model using caetasium co-ordinates.( I know I spelt that wrong),

I hate science, I  just have to tell you. 


From observer A's perspective, it is B that is moving and they are stationary, from Observers B perspective, it is A that is moving and they are stationary.

From observer A perspective B=(k=1) and decreases to K=0 a box singularity,   while A remains in its own frame of k=1 


From B's perspective, it is  A that is a box singularity k=0 , and B remains in its own frame of k=1


added - physical experiment.


equipment

2 projectors


1 dual sided screen,


movable tripods for the projector


method.

Place projectors an equal length away from the screen, one either side of the screen , aligning the area of the pictures on the screen,

move either projector increasing the radius linear, observe the picture contract to a box singularity.


This is just one of the principles of The Theory of Realistic. Probably the main principle , but there is a lot of aspects that relate to the principle.

[guest39538]

added-

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

added-


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[puppypower]

According to sub particle theory, the different flavors of quarks; as shown below, have different masses; energy equivalent.  Depending on how these building blocks arrange, and the amount of energy given off during formation, larger composite particles will form, with a new but limited variety of mass.

Common mass is not quantum singularity, if you use that theory; proton and neutron. The mass of planets is more like a couple of handfuls of states, with only a baby handful of stable states found in great quantities.

A quantum singularity of mass might be possible, but it would be a very limiting and rare case, that exists at the highest energy; composed of pure top quarks. Your vision may be more restricted to mass in the very early universe.

Up ≈ Down ≈ 300 MeV
Strange ≈ 510 MeV
Charmed ≈ 1,500 MeV
Bottom ≈ 4,800 MeV
Top ≈ 91,000 MeV

[guest39538]

According to sub particle theory, the different flavors of quarks; as shown below, have different masses; energy equivalent.  Depending on how these building blocks arrange, and the amount of energy given off during formation, larger composite particles will form, with a new but limited variety of mass.

Common mass is not quantum singularity, if you use that theory; proton and neutron. The mass of planets is more like a couple of handfuls of states, with only a baby handful of stable states found in great quantities.

A quantum singularity of mass might be possible, but it would be a very limiting and rare case, that exists at the highest energy; composed of pure top quarks. Your vision may be more restricted to mass in the very early universe.

Up ≈ Down ≈ 300 MeV
Strange ≈ 510 MeV
Charmed ≈ 1,500 MeV
Bottom ≈ 4,800 MeV
Top ≈ 91,000 MeV

Thank you for some new information, but I have no idea what it means, but I can also assure you that what you put is not related to the relativity of a Box singularity.

[guest39538]

Well it looks like my ideas are no good, looks like I may have to go back painting and decorating for a living and quit science yet again ....

[guest39538]

I could cry. Why aren't you hearing.....


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

∵c  (K=1 delta K=0 delta k=1)

[guest39538]

Up close and getting personal , p me off now.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/cp.html

[guest39538]

pfffff,.........


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

sorry keep thinking more.



Sorry I missed out z in the integrals.

∮ c (y) ≠ ∮ c (x,y,z)

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


In simplistic terms the light you observe propagating between eye and object is a polymorphism 1 dimensional whole. K=0

The objects you see are  3 dimensional singularities of light k=1  in the k=0 singularity ''whole''. 

light is not white light, it is not visually opaque, it is neither a mixture of frequencies, it is a polymorphism substance with a box singularity band width zero. the frequencies of light are a ''result'' of the polymorphism value being zero. If the bandwidth were not zero , you would not see anything different. Consider the invisible man is a polymorphism box singularity.  Ask yourself , how tall is the invisible man, how wide is he, what is his dimensions?  you can't answer because he is one dimensional in every direction.  Relativity speaking  of course.

[guest39538]

added -


 [ Invalid Attachment ]


The Box singularity uses Newtonian classical mechanics and Einsteinian modern physics to produce a theory of realistic based on the principle Newton and Einstein were both correct about k=0 and k=1

[guest39538]

no physical length contraction

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Ethos_]

I hate science, I  just have to tell you. 

I suggest you try a forum dedicated to, perhaps, philosophy or maybe even drawing cartoons. Maybe Disney will hire you?
 

[guest39538]

I hate science, I  just have to tell you. 

I suggest you try a forum dedicated to, perhaps, philosophy or maybe even drawing cartoons. Maybe Disney will hire you?

Two attempts at an insult in two posts, you are doing well today  at pressing the keys have a banana.    Those who ''knock'' are those who can not do.   You are quite hilarious, come on and pretend to give cw thomson and friend a lecture about trying to argue in threads, yet you try to flame also?


I already know you are one of them from sci forum and elsewhere.

[Ethos_]

I already know you are one of them from sci forum and elsewhere.

BTW, you're the one who says: "I hate science", so what do you expect from members at a science forum?

And furthermore, I've never been a member of "sci forum". And I further suggest you do something about your paranoia before it consumes you.

Your questions are a ruse, a stratagem, and a trick to exploit your own personal beliefs. They are dishonest and most everyone here knows that is how you continue to operate. Because mine, and everyone else's answers mean nothing to you, I will begin disregarding your questions as well.

So Mr. Box, I'll return you to my ignore list. I see now that it was a mistake to remove you from it.