sci.physics

On Feb 26, 9:55 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:34 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 2:37 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 12:04 am, Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 7:38 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 25, 3:00 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
> > > > > [snip nonsense]
>
> > > > > So have you studied any actual physics yet?
>
> > > > Physics is a large and complex field of knowledge.
>
> > > > I think a more precise question is:
>
> > > > Have I studied the necessary fields (and sub-fields) one should have
> > > > mastered to make the claims I have made?
>
> > > > Eric, that is a terrific question.
>
> > > > I think I could answer your question if I knew which of my claims you
> > > > found questionable, and what their corresponding fields and sub-fields
> > > > are.
>
> > > You mean /other/ than the fact your latest post is the typical spray
> > > of pseudoscientific philosophical babble that is the same in content
> > > as it was several years ago?
>
> > > Other than that, it is perfectly fine since there is no actual physics
> > > content that can be tested or applied in any way.
>
> > It can be applied to creating a hypothesis with several novel
> > characteristics.
>
> > A hypothesis that should be testable by experiment, though that is a
> > couple steps farther along the scientific method than my work is
> > currently.
>
> Blah blah blah. You have been repeating the same nonsense for years
> now, but you are no closer to having a clue than you were when you
> started.


My ideas have evolved considerably in that time. I've even come to
recognize it as being similar to many other important ideas throughout
history.


In the interest of getting somewhere, I'd like to ask a favor of you.

Consider for a moment, that I'm telling that truth and am in fact
working on a new kind of hypothesis.

Consider that I've defined a problem, a conjectured a unique solution.

Consider that despite having no hypothesis, much less experimental
evidence corroborating, I am in the process of getting there.


Is there anything I can I do, short of providing you experimental
evidence that we both recognize doesn't exist, to convince you that my
solution may have potential?