|
HiGlossWebDesign (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He shows up in Google when you search Heisenburg Theory ;p
PhilosopherFresh (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
nice
descendantofmankind (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
How did you get so many people to look at your video?
starrynightuk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
To be fair, the uncertainty is there whether you're looking at it or not. Roughly, the product of the 'spread' in position and the 'spread' in momentum of a particle must be greater than of order Planck's constant.
tmp6X6X6X (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
PS.: The "P versus NP" article is also incorrect :)"This problem is about efficiency" - wrong. It's about complexity of algorithms."problems of class NP require an infinite amount of time to solve" - wrong. NP means that no polynomial time algorithm is known for that problem but this DOESN'T MEAN that the problem cannot be solved in finite amount of time.These are the first two sentences (!!!) of the article. Two wrong claims out of two. So you should think about what I said earlier. :)
tmp6X6X6X (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
BTW by curiousity I picked two topics by random, Russel's Paradox and Relativity. Now I'm 100% certain that you don't have a clue about these things. But taking a look wasn't necessary, I knew this only by reading the first page of your site as I told you. So I wasn't surprised. Please, leave science to scientists and listen to what they say. :) Greetings from Hungary
tmp6X6X6X (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(1) Nature cannot be explained with essays! Everyday language lacks rigorousity and abstraction that mathematics provides. 300+ years ago Galileo Galilei knew this and its obvious for everybody who works in some field of science. Without math your work is just a bunch of empty words, a "nice try", a sure failure of explanation and no man of science will take his time to read it. You'll receive positive feedback only from laymen who look for easy (mis)understanding.
tmp6X6X6X (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
(2) The theories which describe our universe most correctly are based on very abstract mathematics (almost certainly) impossible to be understood by masses. As only few can run as fast as the olimpic champion, only few can understand those abstract notions. I take my time to warn you because I was in your shoes (!) and I understand that you don't have bad intentions. But this road leads only to self-deceit and the unwanted (I hope) deceit of others. ;)
protheory (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
QUOTE: The purpose of this theory of everything is to show exactly how simple our universe really is and to make the study of "everything" accessible to the masses :)
protheory (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
QUOTE: Pro theory is a literal theory of everything. Nothing more and nothing less, a theory that explains and answers literally every single thing in the universe.Seems impossible?Need a degree in physics and mathematics to understand it?The answer is no. You won't find any high minded requirements on this site or anywhere within my TOE. Pro theory does exactly what it's supposed to do, it explains everything in a way that both seasoned professionals and amateurs can understand equally. |
