[guest39538]

Stop posting nonsense.

You quite clearly do not have the ability to think if you think I'm talking nonsense .  Try a picture ...consider buoyancy and area .

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

F=A then? What does that even mean? What does it have to do with bouyancy? What does it have to do with your fanciful, obsolete idea about aether? How does it even relate to the earth forming an oblate shape? Stop ducking and diving and answer peoples questions instead of obfuscating with bloody nonsense,.

Force is equal to area in a generalised explanation. 

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

The earth is falling outwards but the aether compresses/curves and supports the earth to stop it falling .  Newtons third law it pushes back . 


The earth is a large area falling , large enough to curve space-time energy field aether .


OK ?

[The Spoon]

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

That really is not how buoyancy works.

[guest39538]

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

That really is not how buoyancy works.

Quantum buoyancy you are not yet familiar with ,  air rises when heated because of gravity , you have a lot to learn really but none of you ever listen .

[The Spoon]

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

That really is not how buoyancy works.

Quantum buoyancy you are not yet familiar with ,  air rises when heated because of gravity , you have a lot to learn really but none of you ever listen .

I don't listen to idiot who post nonsense like that. Again obfuscating - I point out you have misunderstood buoyancy and you try to bullshit your way through by invoking your made up idea of quantum gravity. You wriggle like a little worm dont you?

[guest39538]

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

That really is not how buoyancy works.

Quantum buoyancy you are not yet familiar with ,  air rises when heated because of gravity , you have a lot to learn really but none of you ever listen .

I don't listen to idiot who post nonsense like that. Again obfuscating - I point out you have misunderstood buoyancy and you try to bullshit your way through by invoking your made up idea of quantum gravity. You wriggle like a little worm dont you?

No , I don't wriggle like a worm at all, I'm doing objective physic , I've told you all before you have all the answers but your actual interpretation , semantics and in depth , absolute sucks .

I have the answer to the gravity mechanism and most of you  reply back with what I consider primitive physics now .  I'm sorry you and science are wrong about buoyancy and how things work . I know I am right because the physics shows I am right .

[The Spoon]

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks , consider how an area affects air etc , aerodynamics . Now apply the same thoughts to a suspected aether .

That really is not how buoyancy works.

Quantum buoyancy you are not yet familiar with ,  air rises when heated because of gravity , you have a lot to learn really but none of you ever listen .

I don't listen to idiot who post nonsense like that. Again obfuscating - I point out you have misunderstood buoyancy and you try to bullshit your way through by invoking your made up idea of quantum gravity. You wriggle like a little worm dont you?

No , I don't wriggle like a worm at all, I'm doing objective physic , I've told you all before you have all the answers but your actual interpretation , semantics and in depth , absolute sucks .

I have the answer to the gravity mechanism and most of you  reply back with what I consider primitive physics now .  I'm sorry you and science are wrong about buoyancy and how things work . I know I am right because the physics shows I am right .

Provide good quality experimental evidence then. If we dont understand it is due to your ineptitude in explaining, lack of evidence and scientific implausibility of your posts. 

Really, this is like dealing with a child who when you point out there idea about say, buoyancy is wrong says 'ah, but it is a special kind of buoyancy'. Idiotic and sad in a supposedly grown man. .

[guest39538]

Provide good quality experimental evidence then. If we dont understand it is due to your ineptitude in explaining, lack of evidence and scientific implausibility of your posts.  Really, this is like dealing with a child who when you point out there idea about say, buoyancy is wrong says 'ah, but it is a special kind of buoyancy'. Idiotic and sad in a supposedly grown man. .

I have some big experiments as you know that I'm trying my hardest to keep under wraps . However without experiment there is already existing evidence  such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated  etc .  I'm not being an idiot at all, you are not considering physics very well .

[The Spoon]

You said:

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks

This points to you referring to standard buoyancy which is basic physics and shows you do not understand it.
It indicates that you are talking about things on a macro i.e. non-quantum level. You are therefore just bullshitting.

[guest39538]

You said:

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks

This points to you referring to standard buoyancy which is basic physics and shows you do not understand it.
It indicates that you are talking about things on a macro i.e. non-quantum level. You are therefore just bullshitting.

Which part of you don't understand quantum buoyancy didn't you understand ?


gg.jpg (7.9 kB . 463x277 - viewed 4095 times)

[The Spoon]

Provide good quality experimental evidence then. If we dont understand it is due to your ineptitude in explaining, lack of evidence and scientific implausibility of your posts.  Really, this is like dealing with a child who when you point out there idea about say, buoyancy is wrong says 'ah, but it is a special kind of buoyancy'. Idiotic and sad in a supposedly grown man. .

I have some big experiments as you know that I'm trying my hardest to keep under wraps . However without experiment there is already existing evidence  such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated  etc .  I'm not being an idiot at all, you are not considering physics very well .

Yes of course you have pigeon. Then the alarm clock went off and it was all a dream.
Like a child saying you have some 'special experiments' but you cant tell us. You really do not fool anybody and are making your self look more foolish.

[The Spoon]

such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated

That is completely wrong.

[The Spoon]

You said:

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks

This points to you referring to standard buoyancy which is basic physics and shows you do not understand it.
It indicates that you are talking about things on a macro i.e. non-quantum level. You are therefore just bullshitting.

Which part of you don't understand quantum buoyancy didn't you understand ?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Is it a blue egg with some letters?

[guest39538]

Provide good quality experimental evidence then. If we dont understand it is due to your ineptitude in explaining, lack of evidence and scientific implausibility of your posts.  Really, this is like dealing with a child who when you point out there idea about say, buoyancy is wrong says 'ah, but it is a special kind of buoyancy'. Idiotic and sad in a supposedly grown man. .

I have some big experiments as you know that I'm trying my hardest to keep under wraps . However without experiment there is already existing evidence  such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated  etc .  I'm not being an idiot at all, you are not considering physics very well .

Yes of course you have pigeon. Then the alarm clock went off and it was all a dream.
Like a child saying you have some 'special experiments' but you cant tell us. You really do not fool anybody and are making your self look more foolish.

Do you honestly think I'd put myself to the world on science forums and various forums if I didn't have workable physics designs and a present understanding of physics ?

I'm not mad, it would be a bit of a neurological shock for me if I actually got a science job but I could well cope with it .

Take a  step back for a minute , lets put my ability to the test and mention  the best form for a solar panel is cone shaped ,  this alone should tell you I know physics and ergonomic design .

Do you disagree with my shape ?


cone.jpg (7.46 kB . 387x321 - viewed 4228 times)

[The Spoon]

Provide good quality experimental evidence then. If we dont understand it is due to your ineptitude in explaining, lack of evidence and scientific implausibility of your posts.  Really, this is like dealing with a child who when you point out there idea about say, buoyancy is wrong says 'ah, but it is a special kind of buoyancy'. Idiotic and sad in a supposedly grown man. .

I have some big experiments as you know that I'm trying my hardest to keep under wraps . However without experiment there is already existing evidence  such as  air is attracted to the stratosphere when heated  etc .  I'm not being an idiot at all, you are not considering physics very well .

Yes of course you have pigeon. Then the alarm clock went off and it was all a dream.
Like a child saying you have some 'special experiments' but you cant tell us. You really do not fool anybody and are making your self look more foolish.

Do you honestly think I'd put myself to the world on science forums and various forums if I didn't have workable physics designs and a present understanding of physics ?

I'm not mad, it would be a bit of a neurological shock for me if I actually got a science job but I could well cope with it .

Take a  step back for a minute , lets put my ability to the test and mention  the best form for a solar panel is cone shaped ,  this alone should tell you I know physics and ergonomic design .

Do you disagree with my shape ?

I dont know. As usual you have just made a statement without any explanation or evidence to back it up.

This is a science forum. We do agree with a statement without evidence. That is how science works. Dont worry, the only kind of science job you are likely to get is one involving menial tasks.

[guest39538]

This is a science forum. We do agree with a statement without evidence. That is how science works. Dont worry, the only kind of science job you are likely to get is one involving menial tasks

I've already done the design and analysis the cone shape will be the most ergonomic effective , angled relative  . About ~42-45 degrees  , maybe even make it adjustable like an umbrella to account for sun angle change throughout the year .

Then do you remember my cone shaped tesla coil ? 


coil.jpg (7.89 kB . 356x324 - viewed 4104 times)

I know physics and I'd only expect a menial task job , I have no formal qualification I'd have to prove myself and study why I was working my way to the top .

I know my place , I'm not stupid , I couldn't expect to jump in at the top flight . I was only after an advisory role working from home . A sort of science think tank .

[The Spoon]

This is a science forum. We do agree with a statement without evidence. That is how science works. Dont worry, the only kind of science job you are likely to get is one involving menial tasks

I've already done the design and analysis the cone shape will be the most ergonomic effective , angled relative  . About ~42-45 degrees  , maybe even make it adjustable like an umbrella to account for sun angle change throughout the year .

Then do you remember my cone shaped tesla coil ? 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I know physics and I'd only expect a menial task job , I have no formal qualification I'd have to prove myself and study why I was working my way to the top .

I know my place , I'm not stupid , I couldn't expect to jump in at the top flight . I was only after an advisory role working from home . A sort of science think tank .

Prove it  then. Show your workings for your cone with calculations showing its efficiency in terms of electrical output compared to a conventional solar panel. Also include a discussion of the materials used and the technology employed.
I vaguely remeber your 'tesla coil'. You didnt provide any evidence for that either.

You would be unlikely to get even a menial job. I certainly wouldnt employ you.

[The Spoon]

This is a science forum. We do agree with a statement without evidence. That is how science works. Dont worry, the only kind of science job you are likely to get is one involving menial tasks

I've already done the design and analysis the cone shape will be the most ergonomic effective , angled relative  . About ~42-45 degrees  , maybe even make it adjustable like an umbrella to account for sun angle change throughout the year .

Then do you remember my cone shaped tesla coil ? 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I know physics and I'd only expect a menial task job , I have no formal qualification I'd have to prove myself and study why I was working my way to the top .

I know my place , I'm not stupid , I couldn't expect to jump in at the top flight . I was only after an advisory role working from home . A sort of science think tank .

I was only after an advisory role working from home . A sort of science think tank .

Yeah of course. What you want is somebody to pay you for what you perceive as an easy job where you just swan about and think things up. That is not how science or science jobs work. You also need to understand the basics many stages before that. Your comments on buoyancy and the stratosphere demonstrate you do not.

[guest39538]

Yeah of course. What you want is somebody to pay you for what you perceive as an easy job where you just swan about and think things up. That is not how science or science jobs work. You also need to understand the basics many stages before that. Your comments on buoyancy and the stratosphere demonstrate you do not.

I'm a thinker of , a generalist , I don't do complex equations , I can only advise of objective reality and objective physics .  I'm one for practical , why not experiment and make a cone shaped solar panel ,the cone shape is ergonomic and has the potential to be the most efficient shape  the same as the cone shaped Tesla coil . 
The problem is science thinks maths means everything when I know I can do physics , especially practical experiment without any maths required .
I would love nothing more than overlook and advise on some fundamental experiments that if are successful , will be a huge breakthrough for science . 
The thing is though I pretty much know my ideas will work because

1) I'm not stupid

2)I know physics

3) Every idea I've ever tried tends to work

I'm not lazy , I'm just not 100% healthy so a job from home would suit me best at the moment .  When / if  I improved my circumstance , this would certainly have positive affect on my MH  then maybe I'd be ready to face the world again . 

[guest39538]

You said:

Consider buoyancy , the greater the area of something the slower it sinks

This points to you referring to standard buoyancy which is basic physics and shows you do not understand it.
It indicates that you are talking about things on a macro i.e. non-quantum level. You are therefore just bullshitting.

Which part of you don't understand quantum buoyancy didn't you understand ?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Is it a blue egg with some letters?

The earth and space and gravity G .

[The Spoon]

Yeah of course. What you want is somebody to pay you for what you perceive as an easy job where you just swan about and think things up. That is not how science or science jobs work. You also need to understand the basics many stages before that. Your comments on buoyancy and the stratosphere demonstrate you do not.

I'm a thinker of , a generalist , I don't do complex equations , I can only advise of objective reality and objective physics .  I'm one for practical , why not experiment and make a cone shaped solar panel ,the cone shape is ergonomic and has the potential to be the most efficient shape  the same as the cone shaped Tesla coil . 
The problem is science thinks maths means everything when I know I can do physics , especially practical experiment without any maths required .
I would love nothing more than overlook and advise on some fundamental experiments that if are successful , will be a huge breakthrough for science . 
The thing is though I pretty much know my ideas will work because

1) I'm not stupid

2)I know physics

3) Every idea I've ever tried tends to work

I'm not lazy , I'm just not 100% healthy so a job from home would suit me best at the moment .  When / if  I improved my circumstance , this would certainly have positive affect on my MH  then maybe I'd be ready to face the world again . 

I asked for evidence. i would prefer you didnt use maths because you have shown that you cannot. Science demands that if you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. You have failed to do this and just wave your hands about and mutter vaguely about it 'potential to be the most efficient shape' and then insist other people do the experimentation without any evidence that it may work other than self referencing your 'tesla coil' for which agian you have failed to provide evidence that it works.

This is why you would not be offered a job to 'overlook and advise on some fundamental experiments ' anymore than a random nutter on a bus who claims his baked bean can is a nuclear reactor would be.

You have failed to demonstrate you know physics - even at a basic level.

'Every idea I've ever tried tends to work' - really? Evidence?