• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Onesimpleprinciple predicting the flow of Dark?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pixie of key said:
New finding may explain heat loss in fusion reactors

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-loss-fusion-reactors.html

""I'm extremely surprised" by the new results, White says. She adds that it took a thorough examination of the detailed results of computer simulations, along with matching experimental observations, to show that the counterintuitive result was real."



This dudes have totally wrong model for atoms!

Maybe is a time tell for this dudes how that eternal universe really working!

http://onesimpleprinciple.com/l2
Click to expand...

At the bottom left of the follwing page:
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/people/scientific-staff/nathan-howard

You can find their contact details:
Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avnue, NW16
Cambridge, MA 02139
psfc-info@mit.edu
Click to expand...

Send them an email and tell them all about your idea.
You'll never do it, you prefer to wallow in your fantasies.
 
"The expectation by physicists for more than a decade had been that turbulence associated with ions (atoms with an electric charge) was so much larger than turbulence caused by electrons—nearly two orders of magnitude smaller—that the latter would be completely smeared out by the much larger eddies. And even if the smaller eddies survived the larger-scale disruptions, the conventional thinking went, these electron-scale whirls would be so much smaller that their effects would be negligible."


"The new findings show that this conventional wisdom was wrong on both counts. The two scales of turbulence do indeed coexist, the researchers found, and they interact with each other so strongly that it's impossible to understand their effects without including both kinds in any simulations."

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-loss-fusion-reactors.html

You have a wrong model for atoms.

You cant explain universe with yours wrong model of the atom!

Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy / pushing force with each other!

Also light expanding and new expanding light get old expanding light redshifting cosmologys way.

Space dont expanding or curving at all!

Eternal and infinity space is nothing. So, space cant change at any way.

Love
33
:)
 
Last edited:
Space is eternal and infinite room that is nothing at all.

Therefore space does not expand or arch.

The general redshift of light does not prove that expanding space exists.

The bending in the trajectory of light for example when passing the sun does not prove that arching space exists.

So called gravitational redshift of light does not prove that gravitation or arching space exist.

The phenomena in question are a proof of photons expanding and recycling expanding motion/energy among each other and therefore the light generally redshifts during its journey. Therefore the light bends when it passes the sun and therefore the expanding light protruding outward from the dense star gravitationally redshifts so to speak.

New expanding photons interact with old expanding photons that originate from other galaxies of the superbunch/cluster of galaxies. Interacting with new expanding photons the speed of old expanding photons increases and therefore the old light generally redshifts so to speak.

Expanding photons that are originally from billions of galaxies protrude towards the expanding sun. These photons have recycled expanding motion/energy during their journey and the motion/energy protrudes towards the sun in the areas in between the expanding photons and then collides with the expanding photons that are protruding past the sun getting their trajectory to bend towards the expanding sun.

Love
33
:)
 
Pixie of key said:
Space is eternal and infinite room that is nothing at all.

Therefore space does not expand or arch.

The general redshift of light does not prove that expanding space exists.

The bending in the trajectory of light for example when passing the sun does not prove that arching space exists.

So called gravitational redshift of light does not prove that gravitation or arching space exist.

The phenomena in question are a proof of photons expanding and recycling expanding motion/energy among each other and therefore the light generally redshifts during its journey. Therefore the light bends when it passes the sun and therefore the expanding light protruding outward from the dense star gravitationally redshifts so to speak.

New expanding photons interact with old expanding photons that originate from other galaxies of the superbunch/cluster of galaxies. Interacting with new expanding photons the speed of old expanding photons increases and therefore the old light generally redshifts so to speak.

Expanding photons that are originally from billions of galaxies protrude towards the expanding sun. These photons have recycled expanding motion/energy during their journey and the motion/energy protrudes towards the sun in the areas in between the expanding photons and then collides with the expanding photons that are protruding past the sun getting their trajectory to bend towards the expanding sun.

Love
33
:)
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Pixie of key said:
"The expectation by physicists for more than a decade had been that turbulence associated with ions (atoms with an electric charge) was so much larger than turbulence caused by electrons—nearly two orders of magnitude smaller—that the latter would be completely smeared out by the much larger eddies. And even if the smaller eddies survived the larger-scale disruptions, the conventional thinking went, these electron-scale whirls would be so much smaller that their effects would be negligible."


"The new findings show that this conventional wisdom was wrong on both counts. The two scales of turbulence do indeed coexist, the researchers found, and they interact with each other so strongly that it's impossible to understand their effects without including both kinds in any simulations."

http://m.phys.org/news/2016-01-loss-fusion-reactors.html

You have a wrong model for atoms.
Click to expand...

The turbulence of plasma in a Tokamak reactor is not a "model for atoms".

Pixie of key said:
You cant explain universe with yours wrong model of the atom!
Click to expand...


However, we can explain that the turbulence of plasma in a Tokamak reactor is not a "model for atoms" so it is just your "wrong model of the atom!". As it is just yours, do with it as you will. Castigate it as much as you please however in doing so you just demonstrate a lack of understanding of what is the current model of the atom.


Pixie of key said:
Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy / pushing force with each other!

Also light expanding and new expanding light get old expanding light redshifting cosmologys way.

Space dont expanding or curving at all!

Eternal and infinity space is nothing. So, space cant change at any way.

Love
33
:)
Click to expand...


Again the article and quotations you cited assert no such things.
 
I've taken the view that reporting every PofK post which is just copied in from elsewhere as a Rule 4 violation is the best way forward. It doesn't always work (#2484 is copied verbatim from other sites, for instance), but eventually, if we all did it, the rate of copypasta would slow.
 
MikeG said:
I've taken the view that reporting every PofK post which is just copied in from elsewhere as a Rule 4 violation is the best way forward. It doesn't always work (#2484 is copied verbatim from other sites, for instance), but eventually, if we all did it, the rate of copypasta would slow.
Click to expand...

Posting material in its entirety or posting large amounts of material available from other sites.

How much is a large amount?
 
I've always thought that it was multi-paragraphs, and where it is verbatim.
 
MikeG said:
I've always thought that it was multi-paragraphs, and where it is verbatim.
Click to expand...

Multi-paragraphs can of course be a large amount, but I don't know when it is not considered to be large.
Truly large is obvious.
Otherwise, yes, simply report as available elsewhere.
 
Holy ****, this thread is still alive! :D:D:D:D:D

Funny, but I think I accidently ran into this guy on facebook last night. It was HILARIOUS. Haven't logged into JREFF in a while....a few months, at least. And all the sudden, this guy pops up. At least, I am about 50% sure it is him. It's gotta be.

Unfortunately, that is all the information I can give, because no matter how tempted I am, I am totally against doxxing. And besides, it is strictly enforced in these forums.
 
Nihilianth said:
Holy ****, this thread is still alive! :D:D:D:D:D

Funny, but I think I accidently ran into this guy on facebook last night. It was HILARIOUS. Haven't logged into JREFF in a while....a few months, at least. And all the sudden, this guy pops up. At least, I am about 50% sure it is him. It's gotta be.

Unfortunately, that is all the information I can give, because no matter how tempted I am, I am totally against doxxing. And besides, it is strictly enforced in these forums.
Click to expand...

But you're not against sharing hilarious anecdotes, are you?
 
LIGO’s black holes may have lived and died inside a huge star

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-may-have-lived-and-died-inside-a-huge-star/


Thats very interesting!

I already predict that here


http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelu/66572/goswell_sittenkin_oikeassa_mita_avaruus_on_vai_onko_se?page=81

"jotta kaksi mustaa tähteä voisi yhdistyä, toisen pitää olla reilusti toista tiheämpi.

Yhdistymisessä ne saisivat toisensa laajenemaan / hajaantumaan niin voimakkaasti että niistä voisi syntyä havaittava tähti.

Pelkässä törmäyksessä kummankaan keskusta ei kuitenkaan laajenisi niin voimakkaasti että ne muuttuisivat havaittaviksi tähdiksi. Laajenevaa liikettä / energiaa niistä kuitenkin vapautusi erittäin paljon ja sen avulla ne työntäisivät toisensa pois päin toisistaan."


Googletranslation

"so that two black stars could unite, one should be well repeat denser .

Merger, they would again expand / diverge so sharply that they could generate a detectable star.

The mere collision of either center does not , however, be expanded so strongly that they would change to reveal stars.

Expanding movement / energy to be released from them , however, very much , and it allows them to be pushing each other away from each other"
 
Pixie of key said:
LIGO’s black holes may have lived and died inside a huge star

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-may-have-lived-and-died-inside-a-huge-star/


Thats very interesting!

I already predict that here


http://www.tiede.fi/keskustelu/66572/goswell_sittenkin_oikeassa_mita_avaruus_on_vai_onko_se?page=81

"jotta kaksi mustaa tähteä voisi yhdistyä, toisen pitää olla reilusti toista tiheämpi.

Yhdistymisessä ne saisivat toisensa laajenemaan / hajaantumaan niin voimakkaasti että niistä voisi syntyä havaittava tähti.

Pelkässä törmäyksessä kummankaan keskusta ei kuitenkaan laajenisi niin voimakkaasti että ne muuttuisivat havaittaviksi tähdiksi. Laajenevaa liikettä / energiaa niistä kuitenkin vapautusi erittäin paljon ja sen avulla ne työntäisivät toisensa pois päin toisistaan."


Googletranslation

"so that two black stars could unite, one should be well repeat denser .

Merger, they would again expand / diverge so sharply that they could generate a detectable star.

The mere collision of either center does not , however, be expanded so strongly that they would change to reveal stars.

Expanding movement / energy to be released from them , however, very much , and it allows them to be pushing each other away from each other"
Click to expand...
You're now claiming that you predicted an idea, although the idea put forth in the article is not like your very own idea at all.

But such discrepancy between what you quote and what you claim, appears to be par for the course.
 
"For that to happen, the two black holes would have to have formed inside an extremely massive star a few hundred times heftier than the sun. As the star exhausted its nuclear fuel, its core began to collapse. Normally that would form a single black hole.

But if the star were rotating very fast, centrifugal force would stretch the collapsing core, shaping it into a dumbbell. Eventually, the dumbbell would snap into two cores, each of which would continue to collapse into its own black hole."


Heh heh heh. The desperate!

New ideas needed
"“The only way to explain the Fermi signal is to surround the black holes with a lot of dense material, and the obvious way to do that, as in Loeb’s idea, is to put them inside a star,” says Dan Maoz of Tel Aviv University in Israel. “Maybe there are other ideas, but we need to think them up.”"


Well, i already had right idea for that!

And i predict that they can found visible giant star is there, because

1 expanding black star + 1 expanding black star = 1 visible giant star.
 
Pixie of key said:
"For that to happen, the two black holes would have to have formed inside an extremely massive star a few hundred times heftier than the sun. As the star exhausted its nuclear fuel, its core began to collapse. Normally that would form a single black hole.

But if the star were rotating very fast, centrifugal force would stretch the collapsing core, shaping it into a dumbbell. Eventually, the dumbbell would snap into two cores, each of which would continue to collapse into its own black hole."


Heh heh heh. The desperate!

New ideas needed
"“The only way to explain the Fermi signal is to surround the black holes with a lot of dense material, and the obvious way to do that, as in Loeb’s idea, is to put them inside a star,” says Dan Maoz of Tel Aviv University in Israel. “Maybe there are other ideas, but we need to think them up.”"


Well, i already had right idea for that!

And i predict that they can found visible giant star is there, because

1 expanding black star + 1 expanding black star = 1 visible giant star.
Click to expand...

Read that article again, it's not at all like your idea.
 
Pixie of key said:
I already predict that here
Click to expand...
That is a lie, Pixie of key.

LIGO’s black holes may have lived and died inside a huge star is a speculation that the black holes existed within a very massive star because there was an associated short gamma-ray burst.

That very massive star existed before the merger.

Your fairy story is that merging black holes "generate a detectable star". So claiming that you predicted black hole inside a star is a lie.

The fairy story is also stupid since merging black holes can only produce another black hole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom