[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Good grief!!

am i bothering you, sir?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Good grief!!

am i bothering you, sir?

or am i okay to continue to describe what you've asked me to, in the best ways i can, which involves a lot of history as well as science and math. it's a full on story of how we were possibly deceived.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

or better yet, can anyone describe a way to disprove time as perpetual?
can we pause it?
if we can't, and atoms are allowed perpetuality to describe sound as vibrations than that theorem is disproven by nature and thought. despite what it says mathematically, nature has a workaround. (i invite you to try to find it with me)

plus, only some atoms actually hit "perpetual". most are underpowered. it's only the stable (and the 4 that follow) that release energy. its the rest that eat it up.
once again, an interaction very hard to spot.
electron shell diagram. layer 1, two. helium. layer 2, 8. that repeats in each layer of an atom after the first. setting time as layer1 + layer 2. in some thought examples and approaches. 

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Good grief!!

am i bothering you, sir?

you came on, looked, and disappeared. i'll shut up and quit bothering you guys. sorry i tried to help. and **** you guys for holding me to standard that you, yourself have refused to walk. i asked and got less actual answers in replies, and told why i was wrong more. got called a liar. but yet, science has been wrong before... fuckin hypocrites.
maybe you guys are less likely to see your own aggression. or the aggression of people you are familiar with. bored chemist started with word salad. even kept pushing, with belligerence. I'm tired. I don't have the energy to put up with people who have not the mind to make science, only study it. maybe the chemist wouldn't be so bored if he tried to think on history more, and trusting what he thinks he understands, less.
by the way, i'm not the only one he called a liar when he said that.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

just like chasing alternative ways to find pi approximates, right?

Well... yes.
In order to verify that your new approximation is correct, you need to know what pi is to a batter accuracy than your approximation.
So, you are putting effort into finding out something you already know.

But, in that case of perpetual motion machines, we know they won't work.

Do you understand that?
Do you realise that your efforts will be in vain?

how is pi made in nature? can you answer that?
origins in nature?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

before you say flower of life is not an acceptable tool.

I wasn't going to bother.
Emmy Noether saved me the trouble of reading your prattle.
It's a pity you won't let her spare you writing it.

why not call out his rudeness?
Like i said, hypocritical. which is inhospitable, but pitiful on ya'll.
you'd rather trust a theorem then try to break it. just to see if you can. Thats not science.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

I've made use of report to mod. no effect. so yeah. you guys are bullying into submission instead of thinking freely. congrats. you are just as much the true scientists as you believe you know absolute truth, in a system that is still being learned. lmfao.

when science is about making hypothesis, testing, and retesting.
once something breaks, no need to retest. but you retest to make sure it don't break, or can't break, until all possibility is resolved, meaning you found your theory of everything.
no commonly acceptable theory of everything, leaves a lot to debate and find.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

hydrogen=1.00784 u (1 electron + 1 proton)
deuterium=2.014 amu (1 electron + 1 proton +1 neutron)
Helium=4.002 (stable) (2 electron + 2 proton +2 neutron)

hydrogen=1.00784 u (1 electron + 1 proton)
deuterium=2.014 amu (1 electron + 1 proton +1 neutron)
Helium=4.002 (stable) (2 electron + 2 proton +2 neutron)
are random words and numbers lmfao.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

you can't find an explanation for cosmologically seemingly free energy.

If you mean the big bang, look through the site carefully and you will find the bit where I pointed out that the big bang is the one time when Noether's theorem doesn't prevent an increase in energy.
(Because the symmetry is broken; there is no "before" the BB.)

It's not that I refuse to think this stuff through.
It's that I already did and I know it's a crock.


And you still need to stop playing at numerology on a science page: it's just silly.

and what if the energy is always converted to expansion or sound?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

I see you quoted Nassim Haramein . He's a an extraordinarily deluded crank or crackpot, whichever is the best description. Referring to such dubious sources sinks your argument on the spot.

elitism. lol

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)

"The Standard Model of particle physics has three related natural near-symmetries. These state that the universe in which we live should be indistinguishable from one where a certain type of change is introduced."

just what i thought. it uses standard model.
bro, we are talking about a whole new particle model, in subatomic systems.
6 vs standard point 5.
what if the difference is one true symmetry.
plus, the variance of travel would outdo symmetry.

"The Standard Model of particle physics has three related natural near-symmetries. These state that the universe in which we live should be indistinguishable from one where a certain type of change is introduced."
so your arguments are null and void.


perpetual lanes 2^n.jpg (598.78 kB . 2020x1528 - viewed 658 times)
notice the symmetrical movements within the sphere system. a variance that allows invariance to continue and gain.
creating Fibonacci.

2^n over circles.png (10.6 kB . 617x685 - viewed 712 times)

[Origin]

am i bothering you, sir?

I think the issue is 90% of what you are writing makes no sense at all.  It's annoying to have a discussion with someone who replies with nonsense.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

am i bothering you, sir?

I think the issue is 90% of what you are writing makes no sense at all.  It's annoying to have a discussion with someone who replies with nonsense.

are you guys trying for 5 seconds then saying screw it?
because to unlearn what seems to be true, then learn possible greater truth takes longer than that.
oh wait. bored chemist done said he don't need to. because he done proved something. ego. i stepped on his toes.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

Unless you have tried to test possible perpetual systems, you can't outright deny them from personal knowledge.

Yes I can.
Because of this.

That wouldn't work. Noether's theorem guarantees that such a perpetual motion machine cannot exist:

Why are you ignoring the mathematical proof that you are wrong?
Don't you like science?

i guess you guys don't like science. you just like to think you know better than another.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

they should have taken the pieces

I presume they did , and that's what it was restored from

why would it be seen as valuable

It would have been very expensive, in time and craftsmanship.
It's also beautiful.
Why wouldn't you have wanted to take it with you?

why art, why not tech?
just because you use an excuse of a theorem doesn't apply here.
we are asking, would the art be more likely to be kept, or tech?
and if it was perpetual tech, would Christians not want it destroyed?
kinda defeats the idea of heaven if time has no end.
hence the philosophy of religious thoughts on time, that i shared.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

am i bothering you, sir?

I think the issue is 90% of what you are writing makes no sense at all.  It's annoying to have a discussion with someone who replies with nonsense.

like the way you guys have spoken to me hasn't been unnerving?
pot calling the kettle black.

[Bored chemist]

I see you quoted Nassim Haramein . He's a an extraordinarily deluded crank or crackpot, whichever is the best description. Referring to such dubious sources sinks your argument on the spot.

elitism. lol

It really isn't elitism to point out that a crank is a crank.

[Bored chemist]

i didn't ask you what time it was.

Nobody said you had.
Try to keep up.

which is why disc of sabu needed to be porous.

It's a piece of metal.
Copper is not porous.
So you must be wrong.

Why did you not work that out for yourself?

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

I see you quoted Nassim Haramein . He's a an extraordinarily deluded crank or crackpot, whichever is the best description. Referring to such dubious sources sinks your argument on the spot.

elitism. lol

It really isn't elitism to point out that a crank is a crank.

unless he's not a crank. and his seeing the power behind flower of life imagery. i guess anyone who goes against what you say is a crank. does that make you the authority. no. its your opinion. zero scientific relevance.

[KiltedWeirdo (OP)]

i didn't ask you what time it was.

Nobody said you had.
Try to keep up.

which is why disc of sabu needed to be porous.

It's a piece of metal.
Copper is not porous.
So you must be wrong.

Why did you not work that out for yourself?

"The disc-shaped artefact, aka the Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc Figure 1, was excavated from the Mastaba of Prince Sabu (son of Pharaoh Anedjib, First Dynasty (c.3150-2890 BC)) by Walter Bryan Emery in 1936 (Emery, 1949) . It has the structure of a central hub and three smoothly curved “lobes,” and its dimensions are: 61 cm in diameter, 1 cm thick, and 10.6 cm in the center (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The central hub obviously has been designed to fit onto a pole. It is reported that the object is made of schist, a very fragile and delicate rock. These features of the Disc, the curvature and delicacy, naturally suggest that it was used softly in some liquid. Taking account of these features of the Disc, and also of"

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=114435
guess you might want to step back a moment and read that paper. the original wasn't copper.