The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

[bungee]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

but you will need a cage with a hole size less that the distance between the protons. You have to prevent the positive field seeking the negative potential. That is the challenge.

Is that the distance between protons in the same atom or the distance between protons in different atoms?

Again, I repeatedly make it clear that all I have produced is a debate.

But debate is just that, debate. If you want to change science you need hard facts not debate. That is why I asked about experiments or predictions that would prove your theory and disproved current physics. It's not about building an $100M institution but just listing out the predictions and experiments that would prove or disprove your theory.

You could then identify those which were cheap and decisive. If you don't have the money there are lots of websites now to get funding. As has been said previously it's not upto existing scientists to prove your theory right and the current theories wrong but if you have some hard experimental data that does not fit with current physics models but fits with your model then you have something you can wave infront of physisists which they will need to try to explain using current physics.

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Perhaps, in a very real sense, your comment strikes right at the heart of this debate; what one may well describe as a fundamentalist attitude to anyone who has an "outside" opinion. One of my hobbies is collecting old books and one of my favourites is; English Seamen in the Sixteenth Century by James Anthony Froude. The lectures printed in this volume were delivered at Oxford in the Easter terms of 1893 and 1894. Froude describes how English seamen that were, for example, shipwrecked on the shores of Spain and who could not show evidence of their adherence to Roman catholic scriptures; were indeed, burned at the stake.

The theme of a need to punish anyone who does not abide by a generally, (amongst the adherents), accepted viewpoint; runs right through human history to this very day.

Gosh! I smiled back at someone calling me what are dreadful names and am admonished for my smile.

Fundamentalism is the antithesis of freedom of thought; where science is supposed to be the engine of open debate about the ongoing search for knowledge; fundamentalism demands adherence to one line of thinking to be held above all others without any argument.

Dammed if one so much as dares to disagree; regardless that they have not read that of which they so ardently reject.

History is repeating itself here in the 21st Century; right here on the pages of iTulip.

As I've said before, you're suffering from grandiose delusions. This isn't the Inquisition, it's an internet message board. You're not Galileo. Nobody is going to imprison you or burn you at the stake. You are not fighting mysticism with science. You are fighting science with nonsense. You are no more a scientist than a child playing in a cardboard box is an astronaut or a race car driver.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Is that the distance between protons in the same atom or the distance between protons in different atoms?



But debate is just that, debate. If you want to change science you need hard facts not debate. That is why I asked about experiments or predictions that would prove your theory and disproved current physics. It's not about building an $100M institution but just listing out the predictions and experiments that would prove or disprove your theory.

You could then identify those which were cheap and decisive. If you don't have the money there are lots of websites now to get funding. As has been said previously it's not upto existing scientists to prove your theory right and the current theories wrong but if you have some hard experimental data that does not fit with current physics models but fits with your model then you have something you can wave infront of physisists which they will need to try to explain using current physics.

The most realistic answer is to ask you to read the book.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

As I've said before, you're suffering from grandiose delusions. This isn't the Inquisition, it's an internet message board. You're not Galileo. Nobody is going to imprison you or burn you at the stake. You are not fighting mysticism with science. You are fighting science with nonsense. You are no more a scientist than a child playing in a cardboard box is an astronaut or a race car driver.

You keep attacking me, rather than what has been written.

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

You keep attacking me, rather than what has been written.

Any attack on your "theory" leads to you saying "buy my book!". The few times you have tried defending it your muddled thoughts are so imprecise as to be devoid of any meaning.

If a traveling salesman tries to peddle his snake oil on my street am I required to buy his product in order to prove its inefficacy?

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Excuse the question; have you read, (and I do mean read, not just scanned a few pages), The Principia?

Even more importantly, have you published a detailed paper analyzing his wording, breaking down his thoughts into useful stages? Mine is in the book, show me yours please.

Seriously, Chris? This is your reply? "Have I read The Principia?" Let me ask you this then. Have you read any physics paper published since The Principia? Any paper from this century? Last? Have you read Einstein's papers on general relativity? (Now a century old). Yang and Mills paper that is the foundation of the Standard Model of elementary particles? You rail against their findings as if you have read them, so have you?

Since you are complaining about people writing against your book without reading it, I say pot calling a kettle black. Show me that you read and understand the work of those who provided us with the present understanding of the material world. Understanding consistent with numerous experimental tests. Shouting that they are all wrong without reading/understanding their work while at the same time demanding that people read your book before criticizing it amounts to hypocrisy. (I'm sure you will love to complain about attaching this label to you. :P Another claim to martyrdom.)

[astonas]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Any attack on your "theory" leads to you saying "buy my book!". The few times you have tried defending it your muddled thoughts are so imprecise as to be devoid of any meaning.

If a traveling salesman tries to peddle his snake oil on my street am I required to buy his product in order to prove its inefficacy?

Thanks DSPencer, for providing the correct analogy.

It is by now quite clear that Chris is nothing more than a con-man. The only thing that is still unclear is whether he is also one that is ignorant enough to have fallen for his own con. I think he might be, but a psychiatrist or psychologist would probably have to assess him in person to be sure.

His insistence that people buy his book is nothing more than an attempt to bilk money out of them, just as his attempts to "engage in discussion" is an attempt to con people out of their time, and by doing so implicitly grant him a modicum of entirely undeserved respect.

As far as I can discern, he has yet to write a single sentence on this site that is worthy of even the slightest shred of respect, though out of courtesy he has repeatedly been granted such respect anyway, usually with the intended purpose of keeping the site civil. I myself have made that error on several occasions, which I now regret. For whenever he has been granted such courtesy, he has simply abused it, by using it to further feed his own broad delusion that there exist people who think he is worth reading, and then pushing his nonsense even harder. He seems to have a collection of such memories, examples when people show him politeness, and he mis-categorizes this as vindication, which he trots out whenever people point out that no one is buying what he's selling.

(For Pete's sake, the man feels validated when his government sends him a form letter acknowledging receipt of one of his missives, when it is perfectly clear that he is merely getting the same response that any crank sending their manifesto in gets!)

I now believe that by including him in discussion at all we have probably been inadvertently enabling an illness to progress, by allowing him to believe that he is not delusional, but that people think his senseless notions have value. It is perfectly clear that they never have, and likely never will. That's why I think it is now time to withdraw this community's usually admirable respect for others with different views. In this case, it is only serving to harm the recipient, by extending and deepening his delusions of grandeur that are so profound that I can't imagine them not being indicative of mental illness. Courtesy is great, but not if it does harm, and in this case, it probably is doing harm.

He has nothing whatsoever to offer. He repeatedly pretends that people are attacking him for his ideas. (They aren't.) He insists people are defending some canonical establishment of ideas. (They aren't.) Any scientist at all would be thrilled to see an improved gravitational theory. But that's not what Chris is offering. Far from it.

Instead, his detractors are quite correctly pointing out that Chris pretends to offer ideas for evaluation, when in fact he offers none. There just isn't even a hypothesis buried anywhere in there. Given the state to which this field has advanced, it is not possible to have a testable hypothesis to discuss without a mathematical description, and therefore there also cannot be a theory (which is a hypothesis that has been broadly validated, with no remaining contradictory data sufficiently credible to challenge it).

Every schoolchild who has had to do a science fair project involving a controlled experiment has done more science than Chris has ever even claimed to have done in his 500 page pile of trash, because they at least have formulated a testable proposal, however simple. In contrast, his categorization of his delusional gobbledygook as a "scientific theory" only further demonstrates his profound ignorance of what that term means.

The fact that it is easily possible to write 500 pages and still say nothing at all is what Chris is most steadfast in refusing to acknowledge, presumably because it would mean acknowledging that he has wasted his life pursuing this end (which it is easy to see that he has).

Of course one feels sorry for him for needing to defend his wasted time! But that does not create any obligation on the part of others to join him in his delusion. Doing so would only further extend his illness, and it is time to help him -- by declining to do so. He needs to get professional psychiatric help, and our courtesy -- even if offered with the best of intentions -- may be keeping him from pursuing that help.

I have no doubt that Chris will want to respond, as he always does, with his pretense that he is somehow being martyred for his revolutionary thinking with this line of reasoning. But that's not what's happening. As I have repeatedly said, the only thing that is being pointed out is his complete LACK of thinking on this subject. That there just isn't an idea buried under all his self-aggrandizing words to discuss. And no, no-one needs to read 500 pages to know that. Chris's own descriptions of his work give us all the information anyone needs to know to make that assessment.

He literally admits that his own writing is garbage, even while he is too ignorant of the minimum criteria for scientific thinking to be aware that it is what he, himself is saying about his own writing that forces us to classify it as such.

[Woodsman]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Astonas, you come off as an evil little shit in this thread. Not your finest moment, sir.

[astonas]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Astonas, you come off as an evil little shit in this thread. Not your finest moment, sir.

Thanks for the notice, Woodsman.

I guess you could say I've lost my tolerance for people who deliberately work to blurr the line between objective, measurable reality and their personal fantasies, and then expect everyone else to join them in pretending there are no real-world consequences.

I'd offer you three guesses as to why that might be, but I suspect you're bright enough to get it in one.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Any attack on your "theory" leads to you saying "buy my book!". The few times you have tried defending it your muddled thoughts are so imprecise as to be devoid of any meaning.

If a traveling salesman tries to peddle his snake oil on my street am I required to buy his product in order to prove its inefficacy?

I did not say, buy my book; I said; "rather than what has been written"

Which was about fundamentalism.

Right now I am reading Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics by Frederick Pollock, M.A., LL.D. Macmillan and Co. 1882. In particular Chapter XII, Marcus Aurelius and the Stoic Philosophy. It would seem that the enduring aspect of being so continuously attacked, as herein, has many historical attributes. It seems that my stoicism is well regarded historically.

But of even greater importance is that, your mistake, shows just how much you are centered upon attack of the person rather than debate of the writings. Now, I am not going to be drawn into any analysis of why some individuals attack the person; that is very well documented elsewhere and I have no intention of following your lead.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Seriously, Chris? This is your reply? "Have I read The Principia?" Let me ask you this then. Have you read any physics paper published since The Principia? Any paper from this century? Last? Have you read Einstein's papers on general relativity? (Now a century old). Yang and Mills paper that is the foundation of the Standard Model of elementary particles? You rail against their findings as if you have read them, so have you?

Since you are complaining about people writing against your book without reading it, I say pot calling a kettle black. Show me that you read and understand the work of those who provided us with the present understanding of the material world. Understanding consistent with numerous experimental tests. Shouting that they are all wrong without reading/understanding their work while at the same time demanding that people read your book before criticizing it amounts to hypocrisy. (I'm sure you will love to complain about attaching this label to you. :P Another claim to martyrdom.)

Yes, but many decades ago now.

My long journey to completing the book brought me to the conclusion that the most important works were the earliest; where many were still trying to find answers to even the simplest of questions posed. Thus I particularly cite:

The History and Present State of Electricity by Joseph Priestley, 3rd edition 1755

A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell, Vols. 1 & 2, 1873

Both of which I sat and read while making good use of the excellent library at Houston University during 2007.

Yes, without directly setting out to do so, my work challenges the standard model; but that was not the aiming point. What I have set out to do is find answers to questions that no one either could or would answer. My first was related to the event horizon.

At the time, late 1990's, even Stephen Hawking's illustrations showed an object collapsing within an event horizon, down to the singularity. Instead, the questions I was asking were related to what I believed was a very simple aspect of the debate; that the "event" was a mathematical point, where the mass of an object became sufficient to reach the escape velocity of the photon. That, from that moment onward, as the mass of the object increased, the original mathematical calculation for the "event" has to remain exactly, mathematically, where it reached escape velocity. if that is so, (and I have never met anyone who would argue otherwise), then any additional mass arriving at the surface of the object, would be outside of that original calculation, Beyond the event horizon.

So, then, as a thought exercise, I sat down and wrote about what will occur if that is so. What must occur is that, as the mass increases beyond the first event horizon, the event horizon remains in place, exactly where it was calculated to be in the first place; and thus; from then onwards, all additional mass must be outside of the event horizon and thus inert. In fact, I describe such mass as Super Dense Inert mass.

But of even greater importance, from that moment onwards, there must be another event horizon, rising up from the surface of the now super dense inert outer surface of the object; again, directly relative to the escape velocity of the photon, (regardless of the fact that there would not be any photons of any form of energy between the now two event horizons - other than from the mass being deposited upon the object by the accretion disc), and relative to the accepted manner of gravity reducing with distance.

So, now you have a growing object, with an event horizon beneath the surface of the mass, and a second event horizon moving away from the surface, relative to any additional mass being deposited. (I must add that the end result of the evolution of such an growing mass object is at least four event horizons).

It was that explanation, in San Francisco, that resulted in a NIST scientist banging his fist on the table telling me; "Chris, you must publish". When I did publish in 2003 - The Universe is a Cloud, Some Raw For for Thought; no one would review the book.

All I have done since is keep thinking about the questions I could bring to mind and adding what I believe are adequate answers.

It is my profound belief that it is impossible to create an singularity, due to the presence of balanced forces within any such mass object. That the balanced forces create a structure that can be described in great detail; to parallel what we see, astronomically.

So, please note, no need for mathematics, just to ask simple questions in plain English, and where others could not or would not provide adequate explanations; to try and provide them myself. That is what I have done, over the last fourteen years.

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Thanks DSPencer, for providing the correct analogy.

It is by now quite clear that Chris is nothing more than a con-man. The only thing that is still unclear is whether he is also one that is ignorant enough to have fallen for his own con. I think he might be, but a psychiatrist or psychologist would probably have to assess him in person to be sure.

His insistence that people buy his book is nothing more than an attempt to bilk money out of them, just as his attempts to "engage in discussion" is an attempt to con people out of their time, and by doing so implicitly grant him a modicum of entirely undeserved respect.

As far as I can discern, he has yet to write a single sentence on this site that is worthy of even the slightest shred of respect, though out of courtesy he has repeatedly been granted such respect anyway, usually with the intended purpose of keeping the site civil. I myself have made that error on several occasions, which I now regret. For whenever he has been granted such courtesy, he has simply abused it, by using it to further feed his own broad delusion that there exist people who think he is worth reading, and then pushing his nonsense even harder. He seems to have a collection of such memories, examples when people show him politeness, and he mis-categorizes this as vindication, which he trots out whenever people point out that no one is buying what he's selling.

(For Pete's sake, the man feels validated when his government sends him a form letter acknowledging receipt of one of his missives, when it is perfectly clear that he is merely getting the same response that any crank sending their manifesto in gets!)

I now believe that by including him in discussion at all we have probably been inadvertently enabling an illness to progress, by allowing him to believe that he is not delusional, but that people think his senseless notions have value. It is perfectly clear that they never have, and likely never will. That's why I think it is now time to withdraw this community's usually admirable respect for others with different views. In this case, it is only serving to harm the recipient, by extending and deepening his delusions of grandeur that are so profound that I can't imagine them not being indicative of mental illness. Courtesy is great, but not if it does harm, and in this case, it probably is doing harm.

He has nothing whatsoever to offer. He repeatedly pretends that people are attacking him for his ideas. (They aren't.) He insists people are defending some canonical establishment of ideas. (They aren't.) Any scientist at all would be thrilled to see an improved gravitational theory. But that's not what Chris is offering. Far from it.

Instead, his detractors are quite correctly pointing out that Chris pretends to offer ideas for evaluation, when in fact he offers none. There just isn't even a hypothesis buried anywhere in there. Given the state to which this field has advanced, it is not possible to have a testable hypothesis to discuss without a mathematical description, and therefore there also cannot be a theory (which is a hypothesis that has been broadly validated, with no remaining contradictory data sufficiently credible to challenge it).

Every schoolchild who has had to do a science fair project involving a controlled experiment has done more science than Chris has ever even claimed to have done in his 500 page pile of trash, because they at least have formulated a testable proposal, however simple. In contrast, his categorization of his delusional gobbledygook as a "scientific theory" only further demonstrates his profound ignorance of what that term means.

The fact that it is easily possible to write 500 pages and still say nothing at all is what Chris is most steadfast in refusing to acknowledge, presumably because it would mean acknowledging that he has wasted his life pursuing this end (which it is easy to see that he has).

Of course one feels sorry for him for needing to defend his wasted time! But that does not create any obligation on the part of others to join him in his delusion. Doing so would only further extend his illness, and it is time to help him -- by declining to do so. He needs to get professional psychiatric help, and our courtesy -- even if offered with the best of intentions -- may be keeping him from pursuing that help.

I have no doubt that Chris will want to respond, as he always does, with his pretense that he is somehow being martyred for his revolutionary thinking with this line of reasoning. But that's not what's happening. As I have repeatedly said, the only thing that is being pointed out is his complete LACK of thinking on this subject. That there just isn't an idea buried under all his self-aggrandizing words to discuss. And no, no-one needs to read 500 pages to know that. Chris's own descriptions of his work give us all the information anyone needs to know to make that assessment.

He literally admits that his own writing is garbage, even while he is too ignorant of the minimum criteria for scientific thinking to be aware that it is what he, himself is saying about his own writing that forces us to classify it as such.

You repeatedly use personal attack. All you have done is show the entire planet, (everyone will, eventually, read what you have written herein), that your own opinion is so deeply embedded in your psychology, you cannot imagine anyone having anything useful to add to what you already know, (or believe you know), without continuously attacking in a most reprehensible manner.

Not wishing to add to Woodsman's comment, (though being human, that is very tempting); from this point onwards, I have no option but to refuse to answer any further comment you may wish to make.

[Jam]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Thank you. At the end, he says; "I read them to make sure". Just like a number of aspects of this debate, it is the very fine detail that will catch you out. You used this youtube video to admonish me, yet it ends with; "I read them to make sure" to the background laughter of the audience.

"I read them to make sure"

Do you honestly believe that Feynman's quip was about 500-page long letters? Looooooong letters that the sender demand Feynman pay for before being awarded the "privilege" of reading them? Do you really?

[Chris Coles]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

Do you honestly believe that Feynman's quip was about 500-page long letters? Looooooong letters that the sender demand Feynman pay for before being awarded the "privilege" of reading them? Do you really?

You missed the point; that Feynman was open to accepting that there is always the possibility that an outsider might add to the accepted store of knowledge. That Feynman was open to new thinking; regardless of its origins.

A free society is built upon the simple concept that everyone has the opportunity to create a product and offer it for sale; and thus to earn an honest income. There is no "demand" about it. However that does demand a qualitative decision on the buyers part where Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware, applies. Indeed applies for every purchase any of us make throughout our lives. No one can help you with that decision, always, the choice is yours.

[DSpencer]

Re: The Universe is a Cloud of Surplus proton Energy

He seems to have a collection of such memories, examples when people show him politeness, and he mis-categorizes this as vindication, which he trots out whenever people point out that no one is buying what he's selling.

(For Pete's sake, the man feels validated when his government sends him a form letter acknowledging receipt of one of his missives, when it is perfectly clear that he is merely getting the same response that any crank sending their manifesto in gets!)

As all of this really boils down to a kind of morbid curiosity for me, I have been most intrigued by this aspect. His autobiographies are the strangest collections of "accomplishments". He mentions things like conversations with people, comments he made on a news article, random beliefs he holds as if these were noteworthy achievements. In one of these I read he mentions being on the itulip shadow fed committee as if this were an important position he holds rather than an internet message board group.

It's arguably a huge waste of my time to have even opened this thread, but I find it fascinating from a psychological perspective. It even made me wonder, do patients in a psych ward get internet access? Could I actually be arguing with a person sitting in the mental hospital library next to someone who think they are Jesus Christ or Elvis? These are the real questions I need answered!