james blunt
Well-Known Member
It was one I had not seen before or used before , you told me it equates to a positive , so I simply remembered that and mimicked it . It is hardly physics , numbers are arbitrary , understanding is far more important .
-
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 ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- science
It was one I had not seen before or used before , you told me it equates to a positive , so I simply remembered that and mimicked it . It is hardly physics , numbers are arbitrary , understanding is far more important .
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I can do design dimensions etc, my math works with my theory , it is you who doesn't understand my math because it is new , and just like I didn't know your neg equation , you don't know my equation .
But I listened to you and self corrected , learned your equation .
james blunt
Well-Known Member
A / k = 0
Start here
A = neg electrostatic charge
k= infinite space
Start here
A = neg electrostatic charge
k= infinite space
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Mimicking is not understanding. If you could do math you could explain it. You just admitted that you can't do math.
But it does explain most of your posts. When you think you are writing equations you are only mimicking.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not have a theory. You do not know what a theory is. And no, as you admitted, all you can do is to mimic.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
No, my equation to my theory explains the process , I am using and devised maths as a language .
A / k explains the event action , think about that !
A / k = negative electrostatic mono pole point charge divided by infinite space
That is not difficult to understand !
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What are the units of "A", what are the units of "k"?
A nonsense answer refutes your "math".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, you have no clue. We all know that.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It's a formula , you put the units in , it's charge and infinite space
q- / k = 0
It's not difficult
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@james blunt what reasonable test could show your theory to be wrong?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You just refuted your own math. Congratulations!
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I was thinking more a test to show me correct ! If the test fails then I'm incorrect but the test is huge and dangerous . Wipe us all out dangerous .....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now you have admitted that you do not have a theory. I would suggest more learning and less mimicking.
Good night james.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Huh ? Can you read English ? You seem to be reading a completely different thing than I am writing . I already know your game though and it is to bury stuff in the thread . I'll just bump my post back to the top and show that time speeding up and slowing down is mediocre minded garbage !
I'll be honest to the readers , science has more fairy tales than Wilhelm Grimm ! They're full of beans to say the least and completely deluded .
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This (and the following posts) clearly show you have no understanding of scientific theories or the role mathematics plays in them.
No amount of verbiage on a forum will refute actual experiments and real world technology. Your baseless guesses have already been shown to be wrong.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Like I said , science is never willing to listen to pointed out errors , you are so clueless , honestly !
I have already demonstrated that time does not speed up or slow down and the correct semantics is a timing dilation , not a time dilation !
The out of synchronization timing of time does not affect time, period , as demonstrated .
...................
............................................
The longer length is always experienced , things simultaneously exist always .
Clock A - Time recorded 0.5s time experienced 1.s
Clock B - Time recorded 1.s time experienced 1.s
t = t'
Einstein was sum dum guy in some ways !
You know , if you traveled a journey deep into space and back ,
It is now 2019
You don't arrive back in 2018 because your clock as slowed down in measurement .
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
FIFY
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I have demonstrated , not forced anything , I have just explained the reality that needs no assertion . It is truthful and fact !
It quite clearly demonstrates there is no slowing down or speeding up of time .
P.s Yes I can also falsify the Lorentz length contraction and Einsteins light clock thought experiment .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I think you need to look up the word demonstrate. You have demonstrated exactly nothing. The experiment and the technology I referenced are demonstrations that you are wrong.
Writing evidence and reasoning free assertions, that fatly contradict hard evidence, on a forum, only demonstrates your ability to write evidence and reasoning free assertions that contradict hard evidence.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
You don't even know what your own experiments actually mean do you ?
In the below diagram please explain to the viewers what they observe of both light clocks if the clocks are traveling left to right !
This should be good , I can't wait for your excuses .