Gravity Substitution

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Suomy Nona, Dec 21, 2014.

  1. Suomy Nona Registered Member

    Strangely enough, I do have published a paper. The equation that I posted in this thread came from table 1, line 21 of the my paper:

    Just between us, it took me months to get thru peer-review. The reviewer was first like; there's no way this math works.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't all of science just a game with numbers and units?

    Talk about having good company, Newton himself posted no theories about gravity, just his equation.

    Let's review, the person that has a published paper and that everyone agrees that the numbers and units are correct and that the work gets classified as Pseudoscience.

    Does this make rational sense to you? I claim at the very least, that my work is an honest intellectual curiosity. Maybe a starting point for something larger.

    How about asking yourself WHY does the numbers and units work out? First I had to believe that the equations existed, then I had to spend months of computer time finding the equations. Basically I ran a prediction algorithm, the same way Google does predictions about searches.

    My algorithm found a pattern in our scientific constants, and I took that pattern and published a paper! At this point I expected people to say, hey this is a cool pattern, lets figure why this pattern exists; but instead I get it must be Pseudoscience because we don't understand it. Not understanding an equation does not invalidate the equation!

    Science is based on the being able to prove equations, and my equation is provable and published, hence by defination it is not Pseudoscience.

    Makes me want to jump up and down and laugh and cry at the same time...
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Unbelievable. Douglas Adams was right! The ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything is pretty close to 42. Now if we only knew what the question was? Tricky.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Suomy Nona Registered Member

    While I was running computer search, I had some free time...

    The question is the left hand side of the equation; to life, the universe and everything.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's even funnier if you check the math.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    And yet herein it languishes.
    Perhaps if you jump up and down hard enough it will be shifted and moved to cesspool.
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    I don't think you understand what the words "publish" or "peer review" mean.

    And if you really are "Michael Snyder" and aren't just stealing his identity, that's pretty scary what it means for the quality of a Lousville education. The fact that the email address in your "paper" isn't the right format for a Lousville email implies to me stolen identity.
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2015
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you stand corrected.
    i can't fathom ANY scientist making such a remark.
    in case you haven't noticed, this is a science board.
    coming off with this "science is a game" crap is, well you are lucky your thread wasn't cesspooled.
  10. Suomy Nona Registered Member

    I respectfully disagree. I feel that I found a pattern and shared it with others and clearly that pattern is piece of the larger puzzle. If I am wrong then I at least I found a good way to teach dimensional analysis. First year students would love a someone deriving an equation on the board that nearly equals 42. If you crunch the numbers of my funny example; you will get 42.003448 and no units. Try to think of any number system or unit system where the funny example ratio produces different results.

    If I am right then you could go to any civilization and find examples of the ratios in Table #1 in my paper. If you took all the measurements mankind has made and boiled them down; you would get the scientific constants. When I found a pattern in the ratios of those constants, I found a pattern in all our measurements.

    Clearly my paper and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee, but I do not claim to have all the answers. My work is only a starting point. A intellectual curiosity, or if you will, a piece of a large puzzle...

    Science is a game—but a game with reality, a game with sharpened knives … If a man cuts a picture carefully into 1000 pieces, you solve the puzzle when you reassemble the pieces into a picture; in the success or failure, both your intelligences compete. In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game—but they are not completely known, half of them are left for you to discover or to deduce. The experiment is the tempered blade which you wield with success against the spirits of darkness—or which defeats you shamefully. The uncertainty is how many of the rules God himself has permanently ordained, and how many apparently are caused by your own mental inertia, while the solution generally becomes possible only through freedom from its limitations. — Erwin Schrödinger
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2015

Share This Page