trevor borocz johnson Posted November 21, 2016 Author #201 Share Posted November 21, 2016 16 hours ago, sepulchrave said: [Emphasis mine.] Einstein never said that. Please stop making this claim. whiny 16 hours ago, sepulchrave said: If you want to provide a competing theory for gravity and space-time, I'm afraid you will have to learn the ``nitty gritty'' of the current prevailing theory or nobody will listen to you. yea cliche 16 hours ago, sepulchrave said: And why will that neighbouring region not condense its neighbouring region, etc.? it does 16 hours ago, sepulchrave said: Maxwell's equations also perfectly describe how electromagnetic radiation is created at all large scales, and again can be obtained from quantum electrodynamics. please I am unaware that Maxwell gave a competing theory on the mechanism behind magnetism. Will you please enlighten me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted November 21, 2016 #202 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 hour ago, trevorjobo said: please I am unaware that Maxwell gave a competing theory on the mechanism behind magnetism. Will you please enlighten me? Why don't you go and look it up? Mind you, Maxwell's Equations are partial differentials and are not for the faint-hearted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted November 21, 2016 #203 Share Posted November 21, 2016 14 hours ago, trevorjobo said: Maxwell is black box radiation right? If you don't even know Maxwell's equations, it suddenly makes a lot more sense why what you propose is complete gibberish. Cheers, Badeskov 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted November 21, 2016 Author #204 Share Posted November 21, 2016 hey dead squirell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted November 21, 2016 #205 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 hour ago, trevorjobo said: hey dead squirell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted November 21, 2016 Author #206 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Oh wait it was john Maxwell right? In the meantime maybe you could describe the chemsitry to his theory on magnetism so I can grasp all the knowledge you have since thats what you say right? I'll sseee help answer to you on smart forum where materr thpt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted November 21, 2016 #207 Share Posted November 21, 2016 2 hours ago, trevorjobo said: Oh wait it was john Maxwell right? In the meantime maybe you could describe the chemsitry to his theory on magnetism so I can grasp all the knowledge you have since thats what you say right? I'll sseee help answer to you on smart forum where materr thpt Chemistry? It is very obvious you do not have any clue of what you speak. Do you really want to continue parading your blatant ignorance or actually learn something? Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted November 21, 2016 #208 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Did he have a stroke on that last... sentence? Was that a sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted November 22, 2016 #209 Share Posted November 22, 2016 4 hours ago, badeskov said: Chemistry? It is very obvious you do not have any clue of what you speak. Do you really want to continue parading your blatant ignorance or actually learn something? Cheers, Badeskov I think he is way beyond learning anything and safely ensconced in la-la land. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted November 22, 2016 #210 Share Posted November 22, 2016 10 hours ago, trevorjobo said: whiny yea cliche Fair enough. I suppose it is ``whiny'' to protest when someone's theory is completely misquoted and misunderstood, and it is ``cliche'' to expect someone to understand a theory before trashing it. I don't want to be whiny or cliche, so I will just point out that your theory of gravity, especially the part about quarks as superdense grids of space-time, really means that the divergence of a magnetic field is zero and that the Higgs' mechanism provides mass to fermionic field via a Yukawa coupling mechanism. Really your theory is identical with the existing standard model --- so there is nothing to argue about. (Wow, it is so nice to be able to close arguments without needing to understand or even accurately quote your opponent.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted November 22, 2016 Author #211 Share Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) yeah well I don't mean to taper off... Soo can one of you explain maxwell s mechanism behind magnetism, I won't doubt you, I wouldn't pay attention to every work by a well know name example christian huygenus mechanism for converting explosives into power http://www.eoht.info/page/Gunpowder+engine Edited November 22, 2016 by trevorjobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted November 22, 2016 #212 Share Posted November 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, trevorjobo said: yeah well I don't mean to taper off... You realize you are making no sense at all now, that your sentences are just gibberish, right? Are you ill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted November 22, 2016 Author #213 Share Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) hands down great work filling in the gaps guys. Thems sorts a things make the mind really stew. keep it up! Edited November 22, 2016 by trevorjobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted November 28, 2016 Author #214 Share Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/21/2016 at 9:53 PM, sepulchrave said: Wow, it is so nice to be able to close arguments without needing to understand or even accurately quote your opponent.) c'mon man, talk about electromagnetic fields like you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted November 29, 2016 #215 Share Posted November 29, 2016 (edited) And with that commentary, this thread is closed for review. Please note that thread cleaning may be in progress, so the last comment members see is not the comment that closed this thread. Please review the forum rules folks. Edited November 29, 2016 by rashore 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts