Why do YECs believe the universe is only a few thousand years old?

I don't know...Just recently on one of my trips I lectured at the USAFA and was able to use for the first time a new sun telescope. I have a pretty large background in science, though recently I have been concentrating more on Biblical study than anything.

Where did you get your PhD?

I have no PhD at present, though I've sat in on some of the courses. Never really got around to it. As I said, science is taking a backseat to Bible study right now. I've studied science so far ahead of this time I really can't advance further in my specialty at this time. I have solved most of the "unsolvable" questions I was personally presented in science, its really not a challenge anymore. Religion, however, is far more interesting to me.

Sorry - but that sounds bs.

Please direct me to the journal papers on these "unsolvable problems" you have solved.

If you need a challenge please tell me why the masses of the quarks are so different from the leptons.

Quarks dont exist, and I have no need to share some of these problems. Other people have the answers as well, mainstream science just isn't ready to listen.

Quarks don't exist???????????????


Ok - you are well on your way to being regarded as a nutcase scientifically.

Pray tell - why do you believe quarks don't exist?

What do you think hadrons are composed of?

By your statement I do not believe you work or have worked on scientific problems - yet I remember in an earlier post you stated you worked in particle physics.

And please tell me the "unsolvable problems" you have solved. What journals did this appear in?

As someone myself with over 130 papers published in Astrophysics Journal, Physics Review or MNRAS I would be interested in this work.

The standard model of physics is greatly assumed and made up. I prefer not to publish my work, others with similar results have and I don't want to have what happned to them happen to me. If you're interested, Im working on a new model of physics in my spare time, but at the present it isnt much. I've got funds to gather, theologians to talk with, a college to make, etc.

Studying physics has taght me this: Nobody knows the depth of God's knowledge. So, I figure studying God is the most important thing.

If you have some problems, you can PM me. If I have covered them, I will privately share notes with you. I only put large amounts of time into problems posed to me personally, but I think those may be the ones you'll ask.

I don't believe you. What you have stated is nonsense.

Prefer not to publish work is a euphemism for not having work worth publishing.

Who are these others with similar work?

How can you deny quarks exist?

Do you have any physics background/experience at all?

I have quite a background in physics, but not as much experience as I'd like. As for your question "How can you deny quarks exist?", I'd like to ask: How can you prove that they do exist? I know that you've been taught they do, so was I. But I have yet to see any real proof of them, nothing beyond speculation. Perhaps a discovery was made since I have been away (a couple years )

Your use of the word 'prove' tells me you have little if any scientific background, and certainly not in particle physics.

End of discussion.

Bye.

PS

Stick to the Bible study - it avoids being pinned down on specifics.

I see the problem, you do not seem to believe that there is any truth. You say that you don't completely believe in the Bible, and now, you seem to assert there is no scientific truth. I'd look into truth. And yes, things can be "proved"

Jack

Science isn't truth; Its the searching for truth. So there's no reason for you to be so smug. What, you have a doctorate? So do I and many more people that I know who don't throw insults at people because of their views that may be alittle out of the mainstream. History has proven time and time again that folks out of the mainstream of science has accomplished more than people who cling to 'truth' of popular belief.
Look at Einstein for example. Everybody who was somebody in physics thought for what? Six, seven years (maybe longer) that ol' Al was a crackpot.

'A little out of the mainstream' is not the question here.

When someone appears on hrre and professes they work in a certain area and then make a statement so far out of the mainstream as to be incredulous then I will challenge them as to their supposed knowledge.

Did you even read some of the stuff posted by our friend from Antarctica?

He claimed he had solved "unsolvable probelms" and to have "tired of it".

Yeah right! Solved but not published - LOL

I'm sorry - but you meet nutcases on the internet all the time - and they usually bandy around phrases like "I've solved this" or "I've invented that" - but you never see any substance to the issues at hand.

And your Einstein story is wrong from a historical perspective. He wasn't ever considered a maverick nut outside the mainstream.

My apologies Capt. Jack. Thought fer sure I read where Albert was seen as a rouge for the first few years after publishing.
Again, another misquote from the remnant.

If you wish to hear some of the answers I have found, I will be happy to discuss them with you Captain Jack. Just because some people don't believe in what you, and even possibly a majority, do doesn't make them wrong, foolish, or lying. It's modern mainstream science's fault for all the "nutcase" ideas that cannot be proved, because they are not true. Do not lash out at others because they don't agree with you.

OK list some of these answers.

I'm sorry - but experience has led me to the conclusion that 99.99% or more of the science from amateurs on the interent is NONSENSE.

Please show me otherwise.

Oh, just some info about my works first. I have submitted quite a few to Intel, as well as other companies for study. No response yet. In general, I don't publish my most important works, for obvious reasons.

The one that I had put most of my time into was research into light. I have not only solved the dual particle wave nature problem, but i think I have found, with the help of another scientist, a number relating the wavelength to the size of a "photon". As for particle physics as you see it, I was indeed taught some of the usual things, but as the theories have yet to completely work, or even have a fair amount of evidence to support them, I abandoned it. I was working quite heavily on a new model of physics a while back, but until I can have accurate data collected specifically for my experiemnts, which no particle accelerator is willing to do so far, its not possible to make theories any more solid than speculation.

I have also done research and some testing in space propulsion. It is one that I rarely work withanymore, as space exploration is somewhat unimportant to me now. However, I have worked with anti-gravity wave propulsion, electrokinetics, etc. If my theories about supernovae are correct, then my anti-gravity propulsion will probably yeild the most interesting, if not most useful, results.

I have also done studies into force unification, and have successfully related them all together.

These are just a couple of the things I have done. One skill of mine is to quickly take data and turn it into a product. Most of these theories cannot yet be tested accurately, however, based on mathematical proofs, they work. (The exception is the physics model, my last major project. I do not even have numbers accurate enough to test, only up to 10 sig. figures in places.)

If you say I have not had a traditional particle physics background, you are very correct. But, I do have a large background in particle physics thats actually works. If you have any interesting projects you need advice on, let me know, I would be honored to provide what assistance I can. It has been a long time since I have been involved heavily in science (in religion now, traveling) but I haven't forgotten everything

Please elaborate on the supernovae theory of yours.
Also please elaborate on the "photon" size argument.
Oh and the force unification question.

Don't worry about putting the math up. I have a PhD in theoretical physics from CalTech (undergrad and some grad atCambridge) and have worked as a theoretical astrophysicist for the last 17 years.

Ok.
-------
The supernova theory was something that basically just popped into my head. It is one I am currently researching now. It involves the cores of stars being large globs of antimatter.

A certain amount would be trapped in the core, while the rest would be emmitted from the star. In a supernova sized star, the collapse would bring about a huge emission of antimatter towards the core. This would create an antigravity feild so strong as to tear the star apart, a "reverse black hole"

In a black hole type star, the core of antimatter is smaller, because more can be radiated outward through the large surface area. The same collapse occurs, but the antimatter isn't sufficient to produce an explosion. I am trying at this time to see if a certain relationship exists between my supposed trapped antimatter and the large jets at the ends of the hole.
-------
As for photons, I have found them to be a set of two particles that orbit around each other. As I cannot get a hold of adequate facilities, I cannot determine the properties of these two particles. I assume one to be positive and one negative, in charge and in mass. One will have more mass and energy than the other but only slightly. (I doubt I need to go into why light has mass) I don't have my notes with me but if I remember correctly pi/wavelength (maybe it was wavelength/pi) was part of the formula. This is one of my older projects.
-------
The force unification is something I don't have enough information to test. Currently, I have two theories. One involves gravity controlling all forces, the other involves a spectrum with gravity on one end and electromagnetism on the other. I currently favor the gravity only one.

Based on some research I did with photons, I believe that in almost all matter particles, a small peice, or particle, of antimatter exists. It creates a ripple in the gravitational feild of the matter particle, making somewhat of bowl curved in on itself shape in the fabric of space. This explains the strong force. The other forces are really easy to derive once gravity and the strong force are seen together, so I won't go into too much more detail there.
-------
Those are just some tidbits of the research I have done in those subjects. I have freely given out most of this information to anyone who asks, and it does seem to work well so far. However, without proving it wrong, no one seems to want to accept it for one reason or another

I can see why you are not having much luck being taken seriously. I'm sorry but what you have written makes no sense to the point of being ludicrous.

Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:

Ok.

The supernova theory was something that basically just popped into my head. It is one I am currently researching now. It involves the cores of stars being large globs of antimatter.

Click to expand...

Where does this antimatter come from?
How can the star remain stable in this configuration prior to going supernova? Where does the neutrino flux originate?
Where have the observed heavy nuclei in the ejecta been formed?
Why does the energy budget from a standard Type II supernova make sense with the current theory but would not with yours?
Where is the antimatter that survives the explosion? (there would be some!)

A certain amount would be trapped in the core, while the rest would be emmitted from the star. In a supernova sized star, the collapse would bring about a huge emission of antimatter towards the core. This would create an antigravity feild so strong as to tear the star apart, a "reverse black hole"

Click to expand...

How is it trapped?
What about convective core overshooting?
What about meridional circulation?
GSF instability?
What the heck is keeping the star producing energy prior to the explosion?
What is causing this "huge emission of antimatter to the core"?
No such thing as an antigravity field! Antimatter behaves identically to matter in a gravitational field.

In a black hole type star, the core of antimatter is smaller, because more can be radiated outward through the large surface area. The same collapse occurs, but the antimatter isn't sufficient to produce an explosion. I am trying at this time to see if a certain relationship exists between my supposed trapped antimatter and the large jets at the ends of the hole.

Click to expand...

What the heck is a "black hole type star"?
How is this antimatter confined?

As for photons, I have found them to be a set of two particles that orbit around each other. As I cannot get a hold of adequate facilities, I cannot determine the properties of these two particles. I assume one to be positive and one negative, in charge and in mass. One will have more mass and energy than the other but only slightly. (I doubt I need to go into why light has mass) I don't have my notes with me but if I remember correctly pi/wavelength (maybe it was wavelength/pi) was part of the formula. This is one of my older projects.

Click to expand...

This is even more far fetched than the suernovae stuff!
How did you determine these two particles?
What are their properties?
Orbit how?
No such thing as negative mass!
Why are they not radiating EM radiation?
Are they a small atomic system?
Light doesn't have mass. It has momentum. Do you not realise this?

The force unification is something I don't have enough information to test. Currently, I have two theories. One involves gravity controlling all forces, the other involves a spectrum with gravity on one end and electromagnetism on the other. I currently favor the gravity only one.

Click to expand...

This is nigh upon unparsable!
I truly think you know nothing except the buzzwords.

Based on some research I did with photons, I believe that in almost all matter particles, a small peice, or particle, of antimatter exists. It creates a ripple in the gravitational feild of the matter particle, making somewhat of bowl curved in on itself shape in the fabric of space. This explains the strong force. The other forces are really easy to derive once gravity and the strong force are seen together, so I won't go into too much more detail there.

Click to expand...

How are standard particles stable as long as many of them are in light of your antimatter hypothesis?
"Ripple in gravitational field" - this may sound good but this is gobbledygook.
How does this explain the strong force?

Those are just some tidbits of the research I have done in those subjects. I have freely given out most of this information to anyone who asks, and it does seem to work well so far. However, without proving it wrong, no one seems to want to accept it for one reason or another

Click to expand...

Are you really serious about this material?
I hope not.

What you have posted has no basis in fact or theory whatsoever. It's not just wrong it's bizarre.