How To Shut Off The Aging Gene

[Super Polymath]

Perhaps I will, if I do - I'm not sharing this with you. I want things too. 

[Vmedvil]

Perhaps I will, if I do - I'm not sharing this with you. I want things too. 

 

I am not trying to be a dick, but I am taking the kids gloves off on this.

[Super Polymath]

I am not trying to be a dick, but I am taking the kids gloves off on this.

I know what you're trying to do.

 

You're trying to goad me into giving you the equation freely. 

[Vmedvil]

I know what you're trying to do.

 

You're trying to goad me into giving you the equation freely. 

 

Do you notice how mine equals Schrodinger's equation and Einstein Tensor for Quantum Gravity, if you want to prove it works then it has to equal the known physical laws at some point.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

You're not trying to discredit the idea, & even if you were, no one here will take you more seriously than me.

 

A lot of your work is far more copy paste than my creative insights & imagination. What I have started developing theoretically comes from the thought experiment. Einstein handled his TEs relatively well, it might have cost him a perfect family life, but at least he didn't turn into a mad scientist hermit like what it did to poor Nicola Tesla. 

[Vmedvil]

You're not trying to discredit the idea, & even if you were, no one here will take you more seriously than me.

 

A lot of your work is far more copy paste than my creative insights & imagination. What I have started developing theoretically comes from the thought experiment. Einstein handled his TEs relatively well, it might have cost him a perfect family life, but at least he didn't turn into a mad scientist hermit like what it did to poor Nicola Tesla. 

 

That doesn't matter, does it equal the known laws of physics or not, otherwise, it is false and not this universe we exist in.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

Newton's Gravitational Equation 

Newtonian Expansion dictates it won't because gravity has been proven to frame drag by the LIGO detection of GWs.

 

 

or Einstein's Tensor,

 

Probably not. Einstein himself said spacetime without the Ether is unthinkable, Einstein's tensor does not account for said Ether. So that's out, Einstein's work, at least what we have of it, isn't necessarily infallible.  

 

 

or something of that nature.

 

It would be something of it's own nature. I'm not going to muddy my work with the established structures of the standard model, I'd it work within the standard model only to the point where it is required by physical evidence. 

[Super Polymath]

I can identify fact from fiction without relying on unquestioning acceptance of that which I'm given, that's academic automation. Our youth is full of automatons, their ability to spot a truth from a lie deliberately destroyed by the education system. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

Newtonian Expansion dictates it won't because gravity has been proven to frame drag by the LIGO detection of GWs.

 

 

 

 

Probably not. Einstein himself said spacetime without the Ether is unthinkable, Einstein's tensor does not account for said Ether. So that's out, Einstein's work, at least what we have of it, isn't necessarily infallible.  

 

 

 

 

It would be something of it's own nature. I'm not going to muddy my work with the established structures of the standard model, I'd it work within the standard model only to the point where it is required by physical evidence. 

 

When you say that you are saying that the laws of your equations are invalid those laws have been proven correct time and time again for this universe.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

When you say that you are saying that the laws of your equations are invalid those laws have been proven correct time and time again 

Does that make them unable to be revised? 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

[Vmedvil]

Does that make them unable to be revised? 

 

Of course, they can be revised but your math structure must first equal them to do that without any problems.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

Of course, they can be revised but your math structure must first equal them to do that without any problems.

You see the advantage of working entirely outside the accepted truth is that I can ask why there are inconsistencies with the established math structure. 

[Vmedvil]

You see the advantage of working entirely outside the accepted truth is that I can ask why there are inconsistencies with the established math structure. 

 

Which means it is false, as an example, do you see how all my works on Viral Nanorobotics "Bio-machinery" equal DNA or Proteins or RNA at some point otherwise they would be invalid which is something proven valid by that source which is known to be valid, the same is true of new physics equations or the Synthetic inorganic Nano-robotics, the known nano-materials or known molecules if I constructed the nano-material used. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

We're arguing semantics here, your axioms do not match mine. That's simply all there is to it. 

[Vmedvil]

We're arguing semantics here, your axioms do not match mine. That's simply all there is to it. 

 

No, that is how getting new stuff validated or proven works.

[Super Polymath]

No, that is how getting new stuff validated or proven works.

Not yet at least. I'll play their game though, that's how one becomes the new academic authority.