Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] Eureka finally a proof! (No proof provided in this thread, you all just misinterpreted the thread title)

Author
Message
BatVink
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 22:26
Quote: "Quote: "All of the above points are observations, thay have moved on beyond the stage of theory (also can be read as speculation)."

Not true - they are still just theories which happen to fit the known facts."


I would agree on many aspects of science...Higgs Boson, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Big Bang, Gravity etc etc. But the ones I mention are reality. Atoms don't have a membrane, and the universe is expanding. 96% of known galaxies have red shift (as opposed to blue shift, or no shift). In other words, 96% of the universe is moving away from us. These results collected over different distances and times also show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We may be able to better define these statements in the future, but the statements as they stand today will still be true.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 22:32 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 22:34
Quote: "I say,if it makes it easer,make a video of the proof,then upload it to you tube to show your findings."
Youtube? I'd be sacred to put it on youtube if I were him. The youtube comment section is pretty mcuh one of the dirtiest, most ethically poor place on the internet, and dont want to see this theory go down in that way.

Also, make sure you add spaces after your commas, daniel write.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 22:47
Quote: "Atoms don't have a membrane, and the universe is expanding. 96% of known galaxies have red shift (as opposed to blue shift, or no shift). In other words, 96% of the universe is moving away from us. These results collected over different distances and times also show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We may be able to better define these statements in the future, but the statements as they stand today will still be true.
"


Atoms don't have a membrane is not proven.

The Universe is expanding has nothing to do with any conversation so far. I said that Einstein said it would stay the same or contract. Not that it is expanding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Quote: "Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract."


I don't know why I have to keep correcting things. Isn't an argument supposed to be against my theory, and not against Einstein all of the time?

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 22:49
Quote: "But the ones I mention are reality."


I take your point but, to take your expanding universe example, we do not "see" the universe expanding, we see phenomena, i.e. red shift, etc, which are consistent with it expanding. I agree it's hard to see any other explanation - but that's the whole point about new scientific theories: they often provide new explanations for quite mundane "facts", and scientists don't find it easy to come up with these new theories. Just because you and I can't think of another theory that fits the facts (and what exactly constitutes a "fact" can itself be debatable) doesn't mean that someone else can't.

I'm awaiting Pincho's Nature article with bated breath (as one who HAS actually co-authored a Nature article).
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 22:50
Quote: "Atoms don't have a membrane is not proven."

what are the membranes made of and what happens when the membrane breaks

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:01 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 23:12
The membranes are made from the outside walls of spacetime, you might call it the curve of the mass, and it includes the energy flow of Gravity. Most of my matter has walls that carry it. The strangest example of this is the sun. You look at the sun, and you see all of the circulating energy flow. From that flow you get Neutrinos.

The white glow of the sun creates a bubble which is the suns membrane. It is made by magnetic forces, and spacetime. The point at which an object ends is beyond its own boundaries. It is a collision from outside.

Our own skin is a collision from outside of us.

But why would I create an outside separate from an inside?

Because my theory is complementary. Each object requires a complimentary force to move around. Each complimentary force must be contained within a tight boundary other wise the force leaks away with entropy.

The Higgs Boson is a good example. take away its boundaries and it is totally unstable.

The sun has a boundary around a hole. The hole is supporting the boundary with an outflow of Neutrinos.

A two way push theory works better than pull, pull.

My magnetism also pushes out.

To think of magnetism as a push out, and not a pull in just requires making the push out a particle which does not push out mass. It pushes out negative mass.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:16
Quote: "The sun has a boundary around a hole."


If you mean a black hole like you said in your last thread then this ain't gonna get published at all since that's not at all possible.

-Yodaman Jer

Not contributing much of anything useful to the forums since September of 2007.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:20
Quote: "If you mean a black hole like you said in your last thread then this ain't gonna get published at all since that's not at all possible."


I have no pull forces. Imagine a black hole with no pull force, what sort of physics would it have?

People tend to think Standard Model for every situation.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:23
Quote: "I have no pull forces. Imagine a black hole with no pull force, what sort of physics would it have?

People tend to think Standard Model for every situation."


See, this just indicates you're either a huge troll, or as previously mentioned perhaps you need to get checked. You were provided many links in the last thread as to why a black hole cannot exist in the middle of any celestial body (sun or planet) and yet now you indicate you still believe otherwise.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the office of Nature when you finally get around to submitting your "proof".

-Yodaman Jer

Not contributing much of anything useful to the forums since September of 2007.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:28 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 23:29
Quote: "You were provided many links in the last thread as to why a black hole cannot exist in the middle of any celestial body (sun or planet) and yet now you indicate you still believe otherwise.
"


And I answered that you cannot use the Standard Model to disprove another model. That's called faith.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:29
...I truly hope you're just a troll and not mentally ill.

-Yodaman Jer

Not contributing much of anything useful to the forums since September of 2007.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:34 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 23:35
Quote: "I truly hope you're just a troll and not mentally ill"


The pull of a black hole comes from backwards maths. The backwards maths come from the word 'Attraction' The word attraction has never been proven in history, and was created in the 1700's by a man who believed in some very strange phenomenon. Although Newton was a genius, he didn't look in his own sink.

Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 13th Jul 2012 23:58
Quote: "Although Newton was a genius"


To who's thinking? He was just a man with a opinion my friend,I to have many opinions,that does not make me a genius.

With that being said,if you have any proof to what you say then great,there is nothing wrong with some proof that can be debated,all I ask is for you to show the proof soon before this thread gets locked.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:17
Quote: "With that being said,if you have any proof to what you say then great,there is nothing wrong with some proof that can be debated,all I ask is for you to show the proof soon before this thread gets locked."


Depends on how much sleep I get.

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:25
Specific testable predictions that diverge from those of the "standard theory" would be taken more seriously than any amount of waffle.
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:26 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 00:32
Ok I'm wondering... Is your theory such that everything has a push coming in from all sides, generating a 0 net force, and then gravity is just an absence of that push, thereby generating a non 0 net force? That seems to me like something that could indeed be plausible... Like, two atoms get next to each other, their 'force fields' if you will interfere with each other, disturbing this zero net force, creating a force that is essentially pushing these atoms together, eg. gravity. Just you saying your theory has no pulling made me think of this.
rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:27 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 00:28
Quote: "To who's thinking? He was just a man with a opinion my friend,I to have many opinions,that does not make me a genius."

I think Newton had much more than an opinion Dan.
Why is it that this seems to happen a lot around here where folks compare themselves to others in such terms, usually to pull the latter down to their level, no offense meant, but Newton is a great historical figure, he was a product of his time and still remembered for his feats so I think many believe him to have been a genius.

Pincho if your only on page three of a 300 page theory I doubt you are anywhere near ready to release your findings. In fact if you are carrying this around in your head without putting pen to paper before now I doubt your correct.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:38 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 00:39
Quote: "I think Newton had much more than an opinion Dan. "


And this to is just a thought,its a opinion,he was a smart man, nothing more. And most all of his smarts,where from studding his own work over a long time period. smarts do not just happen,it takes years of learning to be smart,a genius? No,a great historical figure? Yes,shure,from hard work and years of learning my friend.

And on top of this? wrong alot of the time,and proven wrong alot of the time.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:50
Do you actually know what Newton's contributions to modern science, mathematics and engineering were?
Isocadia
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Jul 2009
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 00:55 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 00:55
I bet they weren't better than this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uox0yHLIKSU

and lets try this:



Aww yeah it worked <3
Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 01:00
Quote: "Do you actually know what Newton's contributions to modern science, mathematics and engineering were? "


Yes,math is math,and science is science to every one the same,in this day and adge,there are way smarter men,at least,men who think they are,and this is my only point,men think there smart,but in truth,we only know what we teach our self's.

If Newton thought he was smart,this was only due to his teachings.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 01:08
Well Daniel, that was a very long way to say 'no' in answer to Green Gandalf's question.

http://thraxocorp.webs.com/ Visit my totally awesome website: Thraxocorp. It's my own company and I'm totes the CEO.
Daniel wright 2311
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 01:33 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 01:33
Quote: "Well Daniel, that was a very long way to say 'no' in answer to Green Gandalf's question."


When in deed I did say yes,I know what Newton's contributions to modern science, mathematics where just as the next guy.When in deed What I said was he was only as smart as his teachers where,not a genius,just smart from all the years he learned.

At any rate,this is going no where,he was a smart man and thats all that matters.

my signature keeps being erased by a mod So this is my new signature.
Fluffy Rabbit
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 02:04
I just want to see an actual working demo, with source code.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 02:35 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 02:43
Quote: "Ok I'm wondering... Is your theory such that everything has a push coming in from all sides, generating a 0 net force, and then gravity is just an absence of that push, thereby generating a non 0 net force? That seems to me like something that could indeed be plausible... Like, two atoms get next to each other, their 'force fields' if you will interfere with each other, disturbing this zero net force, creating a force that is essentially pushing these atoms together, eg. gravity. Just you saying your theory has no pulling made me think of this. "


That's pretty well worded for a lot of situations. There is a scaler force as well on top of that. So the central particle of the force scales down to become a hole, and particles move into the hole, and the whole thing starts again. The holes build up, and start to push each other out, magnetism, and neutrinos are born, and of course the black hole at the centre of a Galaxy. And the bending of Space-time which is actually the scaling down of space-time.

Kezzla
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 04:29 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 04:46
Quote: "A two way push theory works better than pull, pull.
My magnetism also pushes out.

To think of magnetism as a push out, and not a pull in just requires making the push out a particle which does not push out mass. It pushes out negative mass."


as far As i understand it magnetism both pushes out and pulls in either pole direction. so its more like a two way push,pull thing.

I'm not a scientist, I have just spent a considerable amount of time playing with magnets and trying to work them out. and i am painfully aware they have an equal opposite flow.

if it were either just a push or just a pull then this would work and i would have been rich when in was 17...
VVV



I can laugh about it now, but I was shattered when I realized it wouldn't work.


try getting two coin shaped magnets. click them together on their face side, and try rotating one of them like a wheel. the opposite flow binds the magnets and stop them from being able to turn, the two force directions wont budge and the the movement stops. the more you try the more they oppose.

magnets are a harsh mistress...

Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 05:26 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 05:27
Quote: "Too immature for me to even bother... Lock the thread. I'm not making any more threads like this. You guys don't deserve it."


Favorite part about this thread imo.

Why is this not locked however? Have he provided any sort of proof?

Maybe it haven't been that long yet.. While I did find this quite interesting the first 2 pages - interest slowly died off as I'm not that into science x) But I certanly find it interesting to watch the discussion, but it feels more like the process to proving something, rather than actually showing proof.
You know, discussing theories - testing theories - discussing theories - finding proof....

edit: why don't mods just rename the thread: "I have a theory..." or along the lines..?



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Ortu
DBPro Master
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Nov 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 05:46
You know, string theory talks about membranes, not as an outer shell but as inner structures that open strings attach to and slide along.

Also I've mentioned it before, but as I understand it, even in the standard model general relativity considers gravity to be a Push force not a pull so I really don't see why you take such an effort to argue against a pull that is accepted to not exist in the first place? It is often called pull or attraction because the term is convenient to the experience in our frame of reference but that is just semantics. The explanation in the standard model of the actual force is push

rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 07:10 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 07:16
Quote: "Why is this not locked however? Have he provided any sort of proof?"

I am beginning to hope they don't as some of these posts are actually getting quite interesting. If you filter out the angry stuff it's ok in the sense that there is actual debate here.
Its just the presentation needs a little polish on both sides.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 07:17
Yeah well as I said, I did find it nice - but since iam not into science stuff... But I can se eit being very interesting if you're into it - I just feel a thread name change can be necessary - as people might actually go here in hopes for proof of something.

Well, just my two cents^^ And yes, the angry stuff is just plain annoying :Ì



Whose eyes are those eyes?
mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 09:57
Quote: "Why is this not locked however?"

There was an explanation at page 2 or 3

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
BatVink
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 11:05
Quote: "to take your expanding universe example, we do not "see" the universe expanding, we see phenomena, i.e. red shift, etc, which are consistent with it expanding."


I'll go with you on that one I actually relish the fact that there is so much that scientists still don't know. Hence one of my favourite books being 13 things that don't make sense (which is where I read about the red-shift phenomena in relation to dark energy).

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 11:08 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 13:22
Quote: "as far As i understand it magnetism both pushes out and pulls in either pole direction. so its more like a two way push,pull thing."


That's what a magnet appears to be, but remember that the physics are invisible. You can make a magnet from a positive push, and a negative push. The particles going in push each other until they meet in the middle. You get that bulge shape in the iron filings in the middle. The bulge shows that the inward push are meeting together. As the particles meet they scale down until they become negative. Now just like Neutrinos these negative particles pass through the in-flow, and bump one another to become an out-flow. Now you have two poles, and both are push forces.



Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 11:17 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 11:48
Quote: "
Also I've mentioned it before, but as I understand it, even in the standard model general relativity considers gravity to be a Push force not a pull so I really don't see why you take such an effort to argue against a pull that is accepted to not exist in the first place?"


Einstein may have used a force that can be described as a push force, however he had The Earth as an attractor, which is a pull force. By moving the position of the cause to the Earth you get action at a distance instead of local action. When you get the attraction you can postulate a Big Bang that pulls stuff together at a distance. If Einstein used his idea to create a push force he could not come up with the Big Bang. He would have to come up with the big crunch. Which is a hole at the centre of each Galaxy. Unfortunately for Einstein he copied Newton. Then everyone copied that in their maths, and the maths all ended up backwards, but physically matching so that it is hard to spot.

Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 13:43
Quote: " string theory talks about membranes"


Maybe sub-atomic particles have membranes, but an atom itself definitely does not.

I find it hilarious that Pincho is arguing against attraction. It's ludicrous.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
lazerus
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2008
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 14:12


This thread...

Just yes.
~~~~
Constructive
~~~~
So where's the proof and theory? An to save time, OP edit your first post with the relevant information which is clear and concise. Take a step back and read over your information and double check everything makes sense and is in logical order. Raving like a lunatic will simply discredit your work before you even start.

Do this OP and we can then have a reasonable discussion otherwise this is a pointless waste of time.

Portfolio; Arthiccup.com
Lazerus Reborn on Polycount and a few other places.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 14:30
Quote: "So where's the proof and theory? An to save time, OP edit your first post with the relevant information which is clear and concise. Take a step back and read over your information and double check everything makes sense and is in logical order. Raving like a lunatic will simply discredit your work before you even start. "


This thread wasn't about a proof, I don't need to edit the OP. I was asking how to write a proof as a manuscript. That's all the thread was about. people got confused and thought that a proof is me posting proof. It's not, it's the name of a document I want to send to Nature Magazine.

Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 14:36
Quote: "It's not, it's the name of a document"


You're full of crap, we called you out on it so you're trying to cover yourself.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 14:46
Quote: "Eureka finally a proof!"

Quote: "This thread wasn't about a proof"


???



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 15:06
Quote: "This thread wasn't about a proof, I don't need to edit the OP. I was asking how to write a proof as a manuscript. That's all the thread was about. people got confused and thought that a proof is me posting proof. "


Yeah, blame us for your own misleading title. That won't tick anyone off at all....

-Yodaman Jer

Not contributing much of anything useful to the forums since September of 2007.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 15:39 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 15:44
Quote: "Yeah, blame us for your own misleading title. That won't tick anyone off at all...."


The misleading title is what science calls a paper, blame science for my mistake. I looked on the internet it said send a proof to Nature Magazine. So that's what I posted. I was asking how I should arrange it. The first line in my thread says... no science. Then everyone started posting science. I didn't answer, so they said that they had proved me wrong, so I had to answer. Like this...

Quote: "You're full of crap, we called you out on it so you're trying to cover yourself."


Benjamin
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 15:43
Why did you write 'eureka' in the title?



Support a charitable indie game project!
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 15:45 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 15:49
Quote: "Why did you write 'eureka' in the title?"


Because I have a proof. I am sending it to nature magazine. That's what I said. I didn't say I was posting a proof in here. I'm an artist, I don't know how to arrange it for science. Then I was asked to post it. I tried but the thread was locked.

Norion
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Jun 2010
Location: The Netherlands.
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 16:11 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 16:11
@ Pincho Paxton

Why don't you post it in this thread ??? You make me really curious.


Martin

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 16:20 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 16:23
I will link to it on my website after Nature decide what to do with it. Nature has rules I'm not sure what they are. I've sent a single paper to test them out.

Anyway I wanted to ask about Green Gandalf's published paper, I got sidelined.

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 17:21
Quote: "I've sent a single paper to test them out."


I'm sure that will go down well. I'll be interested to hear what they say.

Quote: "Anyway I wanted to ask about Green Gandalf's published paper, I got sidelined."


For the record it was published in December 1993 p525-527 under the title "Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE". I was one of 5 co-authors and was the statistician in the group.

It wasn't earth shattering stuff but I can say it's very difficult to get anything published in Nature and you'll need to have very convincing results, theories or reputation to have any chance of success. The paper I was involved with was unusual in that it was a failed attempt to reproduce some surprising results reported by another worker in an earlier issue of Nature. As far as I know the other worker's surprising results have not been reliably reproduced by any other independent workers either and I suspect the whole topic has been quietly forgotten.

I don't really know why I mentioned it.
Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 17:29
Quote: "Then I was asked to post it. I tried but the thread was locked."


It was locked because you made multiple threads about it - this thread won't be locked because of you posting it here.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 17:32 Edited at: 14th Jul 2012 17:33
Quote: "It was locked because you made multiple threads about it - this thread won't be locked because of you posting it here."


And like I said, this thread was a different subject. This thread is about writing manuscripts that just happen to be called proofs. How to lay them out, how to get the message across, how to keep it simple, how many pictures to use.. etc.

Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 17:33
I just love how you make no effort on convincing anyone that you actually got something going <3



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Jul 2012 17:35
Quote: "I just love how you make no effort on convincing anyone that you actually got something going"
Then I suppose you didn't wait a year for the Higgs news?

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-17 16:30:58
Your offset time is: 2026-07-17 16:30:58