• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can religion reject this science ?

james blunt

Well-Known Member
You're absolutely right, it doesn't describe energy. It says that mass and energy are equivalent.

If we take the m to be rest mass,

Before you get to relativity, however, it is really best to start with Newtonian mechanics. You need to walk before you can run.

Well I can already discuss Newtonian physics and Relativity physics , I also know what mass is and describe mass in intricate detail . That is why I don't generally bother with your equations because often they don't work in reality if we break them down and look in depth at them being objective .

Let us start with what mass is

(q-) + (q+) * 2 = m


q is electrical charge .

If you want to speak in the terms of force

F1 + F2 = m
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Well I can already discuss Newtonian physics and Relativity physics , I also know what mass is and describe mass in intricate detail .

Obviously not:

That is why I don't generally bother with your equations because often they don't work in reality...

This is simply untrue - as I said, science works; it makes accurate predictions of the real world - that's what it means for science to work.

(q-) + (q+) * 2 = m


q is electrical charge .

If you want to speak in the terms of force

F1 + F2 = m

This is utter nonsense - again your units don't match. You can't equate electric charge to mass:

ql_1067fd55e9c18ee21523c3958e9781ef_l3.png


neither can you equate force to mass:

ql_5a89c44ff4cada02a290facbec9b32ad_l3.png


Nobody in science will take you seriously unless you learn the basics...
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Obviously not:



This is simply untrue - as I said, science works; it makes accurate predictions of the real world - that's what it means for science to work.



This is utter nonsense - again your units don't match. You can't equate electric charge to mass:

ql_1067fd55e9c18ee21523c3958e9781ef_l3.png


neither can you equate force to mass:

ql_5a89c44ff4cada02a290facbec9b32ad_l3.png


Nobody in science will take you seriously unless you learn the basics...

Nobody in science will take me seriously for advancing science ?

You don't know what mass is , I've asked enough on science forums , believe me.

My equations is correct and works .

It is you who doesn't understand basic physics because you are stuck in your ways . I'm not saying your maths doesn't work because all the maths was invented to fit . However , your envision of physics is appalling and shockingly mediocre minded .
Please do not be offended by that , it is not your own faults what education taught you to believe . I personally don't do belief , I do facts !


A negative charge and a positive charge creates 1/2 mass like it or not , that is a physical fact .

1/2 mass has a force , we call it gravity , 1/2 mass is attracted to 1/2 mass to give the summation of mass .

F (1/2 m1) + F (1/2 m2) = m
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nobody in science will take me seriously for advancing science ?

Nobody will take you seriously because you make silly, obvious mistakes, you clearly haven't got the first clue how science works, and you obviously can't do mathematics.

I'm sorry but the idea that you've advanced science from a position of such complete ignorance is absurd.

If you don't learn you will never be taken seriously. That's the fact of the matter - like it or not.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Nobody will take you seriously because you make silly, obvious mistakes, you clearly haven't got the first clue how science works, and you obviously can't do mathematics.

I'm sorry but the idea that you've advanced science from a position of such complete ignorance is absurd.

If you don't learn you will never be taken seriously. That's the fact of the matter - like it or not.

Dude ! I've spent over a decade learning physics and some other sciences . The only thing I really don't know is some of the maths . Some of the maths I'm probably never ever going to use in my life or need .

May I suggest it is science that is ignorant and has closed ears to better, advanced notions that are factual ?

I spent my time freely trying to help and advance science , nobody pays me for my work ! So please at least have some respect for that and at least try to understand .

How about we start with discussing what mass is and my starting point of electrical charge ?


As you know opposite charges attract and likewise charges repulse but a binary of opposites is attracted to a binary of opposites . Neutral charge is attracted to neutral charge and the neutrality is the mass .

Hence a neg charge and a pos charge = 1/2 mass and the summation of force between 2 , 1/2 masses , equates to mass.
 
Last edited:

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Moving on with my theory :


1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed ! There is no observed evidence to suggest anything other than the proposed postulate . Even after a nuclear bomb test , when the cloud settles , the observed space remains unaltered although there will be increased radiation/energy levels , occupying that space .


2) Space is immovable

Bodies traverse through space and a bodies emitted spatial field moves with the body through space . The body moves relative to other bodies and all bodies move relative to space . Space itself being the relative stationary reference frame of fixed geometrical points . There is no evidence observational or otherwise to suggest that geometrical points of space can be displaced . Minkowski space-time , XYZt , is a 4 dimensional manifold coordinate system where the background is ''fixed '' and an objects coordinates are calculated by this . Einsteins space-time and curvature is of field lines relative to the ''fixed'' reference frame of Minowski's space-time . However , in all scenarios , XYZt , is a finite metric visual within a greater Newtonian absolute space .

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

Observationally with our eyes we can observe the decay of things and the aging of things . However , we never observe with our eyes the aging or the decaying of the space . Neither can we measure the age or decay of space as the only property of space itself is spatial room . It is quite clear literally speaking , that space itself has no mechanism to age or decay .


4) Space is the unique property of a void


A void is empty space and the only property of a void is the space until some thing such as matter is placed within the void ''frame'' . I do not feel this postulate needs a greater explanation other than this .


5) Space has no mechanism to be visible light or visible dark


We only observe the visible light of objects but at times we can observe visible light when visible light is formed , such as a rainbow . Generally we do not observe visible light of / in the space between masses but we can detect it . The space itself has no mechanism to produce visible light and the space does not have enough magnitude of permeability to cause sufficient interaction with electromagnetic radiation to produce visible light .
Space neither has mechanism to be visible dark , darkness is of objects that are not illuminated and does not exist of the space . The space being relative transparent and clear to observation , passive to all matter .


6) Space is transparent

See postulate 5 .


7) Space has no physicality

There is no evidence to suggest that space itself has physicality , presence of bodily structure . Space is passive and this is seemingly evident . In the inflation of a balloon , the exterior space of the balloons surface , passes through the surface of the balloon , unimposing to become interior space . Similar we can move an upside down glass on a flat surface to the left or the right and the space passes through the glass , the movement displacing the interior air to a different position but not displacing the space .
There can be no doubt that space has no physicality and the demonstration and simple experiments of the balloon and the glass confirms this .


An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions , theory or hypothesis .
We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition, that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information. When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the truths we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining.



Any questions ?

Added - I've additionally done my contents

Contents:

1. Absolute Newtonian space
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
3. Binary energy particle ( A quantum singularity )
4. Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
5. The n-field theory (field matter)
6. The N-field theory (Atomic matter)
7. The gravity mechanism
8. The nature of light
9. The meaning of time
 
Last edited:

james blunt

Well-Known Member
That is probably as true as any of the claims that you make.

Well , when you know all the wonders of the universe , it is like magic . You have to believe in the magic of physics , want to get back to my spaceship ?

I bet you're dying to know how it can escape the troposphere ?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well , when you know all the wonders of the universe , it is like magic . You have to believe in the magic of physics , want to get back to my spaceship ?

I bet you're dying to know how it can escape ?
The problem is that you do not have such knowledge. You cannot even add properly according to your own admission.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
The problem is that you do not have such knowledge. You cannot even add properly according to your own admission.

Add? I can do addition and I assure you I have the knowledge . I am a thinking genius when it comes to envision of physics . I can see the invisible .


It is quite simple physics . You know the top bowl that is producing a thermal tunnel removing the cold air pressure that is pushing down on it?


''Hot'' is attracted to ''cold'' and vice versus , the top bowl will be attracted to the ''cold'' of the stratosphere in affect inverting space time energy , using the gravitational force of the spatial field in the stratosphere layer to pull itself into space .

Here is the diagram and you can cheer later lol . I am rather good if I do say so myself !

It should be a small n though , the n-field . The spaceship itself is a N-field , more dense .

Like climbing up a ladder , basic physics , legs for push , arms to pull . I know Trump wanted a space elevator so I designed one , I thought he'd buy the idea and build it . I'll take anybody to work with though , I love the world .

P.s If anyone steals this idea without me being involved , I will give somebody else my photon torpedo physics and we will shoot it down ahahah . (joking maybe)

If you want the proof of existence of the n-field , then just look at the earths shape and ask yourself what is it pushing down on to be oblate ...




n-field inversion.jpg
 
Last edited:

james blunt

Well-Known Member
It works like this ....Newtons 3rd law, except , the n-field pushes back which Newton does not describe , Einstein almost described. The n-field is simply the interior field matter of a BH . It is ostensible that the n-field has a low density . The density is imperceptible because N = n and n does not oppose N unless large masses . The distant bodies that are moving away from us are attracted to the space beyond them that has less energy. The milky way is penned in by the surrounding isotropic force keeping us centralised . We're equally attracted South as North and we're equally attracted East as West , this allows us to stay central . Understand that in any universal cluster , the natural physics is that a c.o.m will form and all the other mass will move away from this mass . Based on formed galaxies .
oblate.jpg
 
Last edited:

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Thank you for your clear answer. One question, were Noah and his family the only humans that survived?
That remains unclear for various reasons, the foremost of which being the Bible's tendency to record events surrounding only the "chosen" or "covenant" people and being silent on the rest.

I believe that only Noah and and his family were on the Ark, but I cannot rule out the possibility that other peoples survived the Deluge.

There is too much folklore had among many peoples that mention the Flood event and various methods for how these peoples survived for me to rule out that possibility.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That remains unclear for various reasons, the foremost of which being the Bible's tendency to record events surrounding only the "chosen" or "covenant" people and being silent on the rest.

I believe that only Noah and and his family were on the Ark, but I cannot rule out the possibility that other peoples survived the Deluge.

There is too much folklore had among many peoples that mention the Flood event and various methods for how these peoples survived for me to rule out that possibility.
Then that would be saying that the Bible got it wrong since it clearly states that Noah and his faonly were all that was left of humanity. But let's begin.

As to Noah and his family being all that survived the fact that one has to go to great lengths to match tissue type alone tells us that there was no flood.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that the entirety of the Earth was covered by water and that Noah, along with his sons and their families, were saved in the Ark along with various animals.

Well, the actual geological evidence shows that didn't happen. There may well have been some *local* floods that were the origin of that story.
 
Top