Way to go, dude. It looks like BSM-SG is a thing (Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory), although you never bothered to clarify the acronym.
Here are some PDF documents that I was able to google:
It’s not so much, that you come across as “omg so crazy” as much as you’re manner of delivering an explanation sounds like the quackery dreamt up by some fourteen-year-old kid writing a comic book.
The filaments are *only* located around the super
massive black hole in *every* well formed galaxy
(not globular clusters). They are the *hardest* and
*densest hard matter* in the universe. Everything we
know is *super soft* compared to *this stuff*. Our
hole[sic] star system is maybe a cubic centimeter of
this stuff.
If you take all the fragments of the fillaments and put
them together they build *a perfect hollow sphere* that
fits *perfectly* around the black hole. Another really
wired[sic] property: if you take a cube of it and cut
it in half, the mass of both parts will be more
then[sic] the mass of the original cube.
The way you phrase your awareness of concepts is cartoonish and laughable. You use grossly exaggerated adjectives the way some people stick out their butt to accentuate a fart.
Then you say this:
Sounds paradoxical at first, but once you understand
how Newtonian mass is derived and that it is basically
an surface property it makes sense.
That is like something I might read as a headline on the click-baitiest click bait headline in some ad-tech chum bucket.
Scientists figure out this one WEIRD trick!
Physicists HATE him!
Experts are baffled at how this could be true BUT IT WORKS!
Partly, your going for entertainment value, but then with a lack of decorum, you come off as a buffoon. It has nothing to do with how satisfactory you find the scientific principles to be, and everything to do with the effort you put into convincing others of facts, while projecting an air of credibility.
Is a little pretentiousness required, to lend appeal to your pitch? Maybe, but you’ll have to bite the bullet on that one.
Here are some PDF documents that I was able to google:
http://www.helical-structures.org/Reports/Sarg_BSM-SG.pdf
http://www.sustz.com/journal/VolumeIII/Number3/Papers/Stoyan...
It’s not so much, that you come across as “omg so crazy” as much as you’re manner of delivering an explanation sounds like the quackery dreamt up by some fourteen-year-old kid writing a comic book.
The way you phrase your awareness of concepts is cartoonish and laughable. You use grossly exaggerated adjectives the way some people stick out their butt to accentuate a fart.
Then you say this:
That is like something I might read as a headline on the click-baitiest click bait headline in some ad-tech chum bucket.
Partly, your going for entertainment value, but then with a lack of decorum, you come off as a buffoon. It has nothing to do with how satisfactory you find the scientific principles to be, and everything to do with the effort you put into convincing others of facts, while projecting an air of credibility.
Is a little pretentiousness required, to lend appeal to your pitch? Maybe, but you’ll have to bite the bullet on that one.
Would you buy a used car from this man?