• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Jestblaze's Thoughts

jestblaze said:
more off the wall ideas about tesseractile atomic structure creation to make tesseractile elements
I believe if you take a radioactive element atom and lower it to 0k it still exhibits radioactive decay but shows no signs of radioactivity because 0k restricts time-space to motionlessness relative to the atom. This radiation goes somewhere. It goes into the impossibly small blackholes in the atomic structure and i hope dilates the black hole enough to pass particles through and into the black hole. Combining two radioactive elements, not sure which ones, to create what seems to be a cubic radioactive atomic structure where the black holes stay dialated and allow for tesseractile formation stable in four dimensions. You may say it goes into the black hole but why does it come out. Simple black holes work on gravity, i believe and atomic structure is held together by the greater force which trumps gravity allowing atomic shifting three dimensionally to acomadate <sp> a constant shifting cubic three dimensional form. Maybe this is all false, I'm no physicist so I'm just trying to inspire you to look at is it possible we may be able to make free energy tesseractile matter in the future. I slightly take offense to comments that I'm retarded etc please stop
Click to expand...

It is all false.
 
jestblaze said:
I believe if you take a radioactive element atom and lower it to 0k it still exhibits radioactive decay but shows no signs of radioactivity because 0k restricts time-space to motionlessness relative to the atom.
Click to expand...


Not only is this silly, it is wrong.

Where do you get this stuff? I highly recommend not using information from these sources again.

jestblaze said:
I slightly take offense to comments that I'm retarded etc please stop
Click to expand...


You are the only person who used the word 'retarded' and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop doing so.

You are woo and you are wrong and you really really need to learn some science.
 
jestblaze said:
more off the wall ideas about tesseractile atomic structure creation to make tesseractile elements
Click to expand...

There is still no such thing as a "tesseractile element". Not even theoretically.

I believe if you take a radioactive element atom and lower it to 0k

That is not possible.

it still exhibits radioactive decay but shows no signs of radioactivity

No, that makes no sense. Radioactivity has nothing to do with thermal motion.

because 0k restricts time-space to motionlessness relative to the atom.

No, that is gibberish. In any case, the temperature is of the atom and has nothing to do with space time in which it resides.

This radiation goes somewhere. It goes into the impossibly small blackholes in the atomic structure

The key word here is "impossibly". As already mentioned, there are no black holes inside atoms.

and i hope dilates the black hole enough to pass particles through and into the black hole.

No, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You're saying you are taking something smaller than a particle and putting a particle inside it. Not only is there no physical reality to any of this, it's not even logically coherent.

Combining two radioactive elements, not sure which ones, to create what seems to be a cubic radioactive atomic structure

No. When you combine two radioactive elements, you get a radioactive molecule, or a mix of radioactive elements if they don't combine chemically. It doesn't push things into different dimensions or other such nonsense.

where the black holes stay dialated and allow for tesseractile formation stable in four dimensions. You may say it goes into the black hole but why does it come out.

Word salad. None of this is even defined, let alone real.

Simple black holes work on gravity, i believe and atomic structure is held together by the greater force which trumps gravity

No, no, no. The strong atomic force has nothing to do with gravity, and doesnt' work against it anyway.

allowing atomic shifting three dimensionally to acomadate <sp> a constant shifting cubic three dimensional form.

"Cubic" and "three dimensional" do not mean the same thing. And what you said doesn't have any physical meaning, nor is it logically connected to your "four dimensional" notions.

Maybe this is all false, I'm no physicist so I'm just trying to inspire you to look at is it possible we may be able to make free energy tesseractile matter in the future. I slightly take offense to comments that I'm retarded etc please stop

You're not retarded, but you need to spend some time learning a little basic physics if you want people to really pay attention to you. I don't mean to be rude, but as the saying goes, what you're talking about is so far removed from reality that it doesn't even get to the point of being "wrong". It's just, well, word salad - i.e., sciency-sounding words that don't mean anything.
 
Buckaroo said:
In 43 years of life, I had never heard of this. Now, for the second time in two days, I see a reference to it (the first being a conversation around the lunch table at work). Weird.
Click to expand...
Maybe you've found a new property of that substance, a kind of harmonic.

My question is, can it be also used as a packing material for toyboxes?
 
And it's 'Hawking' not 'Hawkings."

Sorry, that's all I got. Everything else has been pretty much covered.
 
Last edited:
To everyone who feels to make a thread like this, let me explain what it is like.

Think of if a guy my size walked up to a professional MMA fighter, now i start a conversation as to exactly how i would beat him if we were in a fight. Without , at all doing anything to show that i actually can beat him in a fight.

Does this not seem like it would be a bit obnoxious? It is the same thing these " Here is how my power works." threads are doing. Show that it works, then we will care about how it works.
 
Buckaroo said:
In 43 years of life, I had never heard of this. Now, for the second time in two days, I see a reference to it (the first being a conversation around the lunch table at work). Weird.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, we've been having a number of glitches in the matrix recently. A hotfix for reality is in beta testing and should be applied to the universe soon.
 
sadhatter said:
Think of if a guy my size walked up to a professional MMA fighter, now i start a conversation as to exactly how i would beat him if we were in a fight. Without , at all doing anything to show that i actually can beat him in a fight.
Click to expand...

Also, if anyone claims that you can't beat him up, take on a hurt expression and say: "But...I wouldn't LIE!"

And: "I'm doing this for JESUS!"
 
jestblaze said:
take a sample of a radioactive element down to absolute zero or vanishingly close to that.

does it decay with its usual half-life or not?

i suspect that it does, as the physical processes leading to radioactive decay are not temperature dependent.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, yes, that's correct; radioactive decay continues at its normal rate at very high and very low temperatures.

If you want to follow up on that, I suggest you post the question in its own thread. There are working physicists on the forum who can answer this better than my layman's knowledge.
 
Isn't one of the magical technobabble devices in the 80's motion picture Masters of the Universe called a "Tesseract"? Maybe this is what he's referring to.
 
Kelvin Absolute Zero vs. Relative Speed of Light and Motion References

just another off the wall post but if it's impossible to reach true abolute zero kelvin shouldn't there be an equation that tells you Absolute Velocity in reference to the universe?
Maybe :
Lowest achievable temperature in kelvin * a constant<maybe C> = absolute universal velocity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom