I am the first in the world

[aggle-rithm]

madurobob Wow Funky math aside, a theory is useless !

Show me another theory Who am I? and I will delete my wave function!

This reminds me so much of a parody piece I wrote for SkepticReport a few years ago...

“We know that there’s this microscopic flatworm that breathes fire,” he said. “It’s been shown that it can move through walls. We also speculate that it can astral-project itself to other dimensions.” But, Markbotch concedes, “The only thing we can’t prove is that it actually exists.” While lacking direct evidence, Markbotch infers the worm’s existence through deductive reasoning. “What other flatworm do you know of that breathes fire?” he asked rhetorically. “What other invertebrate can pass through walls? It has to be this one.”

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=412

Proving once again that any sufficiently advanced woo is indistinguishable from parody.

 

[Craig4]

It never rose above 0.0.Is is just me or are our chew toys wearing out more quickly nowadays?

Check out the conspiracy theory forum. Now they get some cranks with staying power.

 

[The Man]

"I defined people at animal level those who are living at the first 3 chakras level"
Adrian Ferent

Ah, a three for one deal. “the first 3 chakras level” for one “animal level”, how can you beat that?

So again…

Where do you place yourself in those ‘levels’?

How many “chakras level”s do you have in your system?

What units do you measure your “chakras” in?

Do you have any definition or evidence of “chakras” yet or is it just some vague word you like to bandy about?

Since you have “chakras or energy centers” and now “chakras level” you can determine both location and magnitude. Now if you could establish direction as well then we can determine a “chakras” vector field. I mean, that is, once you actually define and show some evidence for “chakras”. So how about it? Are you ever going to define or show any kind of evidence for “chakras” or are you just going to keep pretending that there is any kind of science in your purported “link between science and spirituality”?

 

[quarky]

It can be fun to 'bandy about' vague words.

As far as ever linking the mythical and the logical, I'd put my $ on the sub-atomic realm.
Once you've tasted quantum-woo, there's no going back.

 

[ben m]

"I defined people at animal level those who are living at the first 3 chakras level"
Adrian Ferent

And you got 98% from that? Better check your arithmetic. When I plug in three chakra levels I get 45.5% exactly. 98% sounds like a six, six and a half.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

No one, and I mean NO ONE explain the basics of number theory to alfa1. The second he sees a prime spiral, we are SCREWED.

 

[alfa1]

My Big Bang theory
In my view the Big Bang is cyclic and the size of the Universe can not go under 10^(-43) cubic meters.

V = M*20*v/m = 10^(-43) cubic meters

V – Smallest volume of the Universe
M - Mass of the Universe
m – Planck mass
v – Planck volume

 

[The Don]

My Big Bang theory
In my view the Big Bang is cyclic and the size of the Universe can not go under 10^(-43) cubic meters.

V = M*20*v/m = 10^(-43) cubic meters

V – Smallest volume of the Universe
M - Mass of the Universe
m – Planck mass
v – Planck volume

You got any workings out to support this or did you just pull the equation out of thin air ?

 

[Craig4]

My Big Bang theory
In my view the Big Bang is cyclic and the size of the Universe can not go under 10^(-43) cubic meters.

V = M*20*v/m = 10^(-43) cubic meters

V – Smallest volume of the Universe
M - Mass of the Universe
m – Planck mass
v – Planck volume

Given up on the chakras have you?

 

[Fnord]

Apparently so.

Ambiguity is the last refuge of the ignorant.

 

[Mirrorglass]

My Big Bang theory
In my view the Big Bang is cyclic and the size of the Universe can not go under 10^(-43) cubic meters.

V = M*20*v/m = 10^(-43) cubic meters

V – Smallest volume of the Universe
M - Mass of the Universe
m – Planck mass
v – Planck volume

Why?

 

[aggle-rithm]

My Big Bang theory
In my view the Big Bang is cyclic and the size of the Universe can not go under 10^(-43) cubic meters.

Enjoy your view.

 

[alfa1]

I see people are interested in Big Bang, string theory...

The energy of the string is huge: minimum energies of strings are actually couple times of the Planck energy(more than billion x billion time of a proton energy).
The question is how such strings with such huge energy generate 'small energy' particles like electrons, protons...?
It's like using mountains to build small rocks!

 

[Cuddles]

The energy of the string is huge

But how long is this piece of string?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I see people are interested in Big Bang, string theory...

What fun! Let me try!

"I see people are interested in football, truffles..."

 

[aggle-rithm]

But how long is this piece of string?

It's kept in here:

 

[I Ratant]

You got any workings out to support this or did you just pull the equation out of thin air ?

.
Probably not from air, something more solid, after a full meal, mayhap.

 

[I Ratant]

But how long is this piece of string?

.
Snip!
Now you have two pieces of string!

 

[Vorticity]

alfa1, I never got answers to my questions from page 1 of this thread:

Are the 7 states |Φi > orthonormal? Are they complete? What Hilbert space do they span?

Are the amplitudes ci fixed, or are they constrained by the observation of observables?

Does the wave function |ψ> serve to completely specify the individual? If so, how can it be that a given human is constrained and characterized via the specification of a mere seven complex numbers?

I'm completely serious. You seek to use the notation of quantum mechanics. Such usage is meaningless unless you preserve the notation's meaning.

 

[ben m]

"I see people are interested in football, truffles..."

98% of truffles are at animal level. That's why pigs are good at finding them.