Can religion reject this science ?

[Subduction Zone]

Parrot concepts ? I've not heard of micro bangs and my theory before anywhere !

Hows my maths looking ?

Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).

In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang theory expresses :

1) Q- / <E (k) = 0 to express a negative charged mono-pole divided by the lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence

2) Q+ / <E (k) = 0 to express a positive charged mono-pole divided by lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence

You are parroting what you have seen but did not understand.

Your math fails because your units are meaningless.

 

[james blunt]

You are parroting what you have seen but did not understand.

Your math fails because your units are meaningless.

HUh ? they are your units !

Time doesn't exist until part 3 so we can't have time as a unit yet .

Particles popping into and out of existence is time trying to begin .

Time begins at 3, space -time begins at 4

(Q-) + (Q+)/k =t

 

[Subduction Zone]

HUh ? they are your units !

Time doesn't exist until part 3 so we can't have time as a unit yet .

Particles popping into and out of existence is time trying to begin .

And you don't know how to use them. Using your head on a tree will not make it fall down.

 

[james blunt]

And you don't know how to use them. Using your head on a tree will not make it fall down.

I'm using them correctly , I know how to divide something .

We can't say 1 / 1 because infinite space is not 1 so we have to say something else , so I used k .

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm using them correctly , I know how to divide something .

We can't say 1 / 1 because infinite space is not 1 so we have to say something else , so I used k .

Really? If you are using them correctly then explain the energy of sliding an object over a smooth surface that produces a constant friction. Instead of joules explain it using meters, kilograms, and seconds.

 

[james blunt]

Really? If you are using them correctly then explain the energy of sliding an object over a smooth surface that produces a constant friction. Instead of joules explain it using meters, kilograms, and seconds.

That has nothing to do with my theory but it is an interesting question I don't know the answer too . Obviously we have m for mass , t for time and d for distance .

dx/t *m

m*dx/t

pass?

F=ma/t

I don't know ...

P(m1) = kE

I'll keep thinking about it , I'll work it out maybe . I know the friction between surfaces is because of inertia and gravity , the sliding of the object creates kE between the surfaces that creates heat .

 

[youknowme]

He is clearly sick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has nothing to do with my theory but it is an interesting question I don't know the answer too . Obviously we have m for mass , t for time and d for distance .

dx/t *m

m*dx/t

pass?

F=ma/t

I don't know ...

P(m1) = kE

I'll keep thinking about it , I'll work it out maybe . I know the friction between surfaces is because of inertia and gravity , the sliding of the object creates kE between the surfaces that creates heat .

Parroting is not understanding.

 

[ratiocinator]

Electrons and Protons are mono-poles .

No, they aren't.

Maybe

e / <E (k) = 0

+1e / <E (k) = 0

Momentum P=<E

Force = <E

Or how about

e / S∞ = 0

+1e / S∞ = 0

E / <E = 4/3 πr³ is rather genius , I explain that in sectio

Gibberish.

There is no point in giving an equation unless you define all the terms, their units, and the physical situation to which they apply. There is no point in writing things like "/<" because it has no accepted meaning. If you want to use it, you need to define what you mean by it. There is no point in writing "S∞" because it's just ∞. There is no point in writing things like "e / S∞ = 0" because it's true no matter what e and S are (unless e = ∞). I could go on but I'm bored...

 

[james blunt]

No, they aren't.



Gibberish.

There is no point in giving an equation unless you define all the terms, their units, and the physical situation to which they apply. There is no point in writing things like "/<" because it has no accepted meaning. If you want to use it, you need to define what you mean by it. There is no point in writing "S∞" because it's just ∞. There is no point in writing things like "e / S∞ = 0" because it's true no matter what e and S are (unless e = ∞). I could go on but I'm bored...

You're another clueless one , I've defined the terms .

e and +1e are your own terms for one , S is entropy , you obviously don't know any maths .

 

[james blunt]

He is clearly sick.

Clearly sick of mediocre minded fake science ....

 

[james blunt]

E = (e) + (+1e) / t * E³ = (E / < E) / t Because e / <E = 0 and +1e / <E = 0


Isn't it just eloquent

 

[ratiocinator]

E = (e) + (+1e) / t * E³ = (E / < E) / t Because e / <E = 0 and +1e / <E = 0


Isn't it just eloquent

Nope - still gibberish.

 

[Polymath257]

Clearly sick of mediocre minded fake science ....

And yet that seems to be all you do...or try to do.

 

[james blunt]

And yet that seems to be all you do...or try to do.

There is nothing fake about my science , it uses basic physical laws of the universe . Mostly axiom facts ....

 

[Polymath257]

There is nothing fake about my science , it uses basic physical laws of the universe . Mostly axiom facts ....

Funny that nobody else seems to think those are the *actual* laws of physics (including those trained in physics) and nobody else considers those axioms to be realistic.

That is what makes your ideas 'fake science': they have no actual connection to any real science at all.

 

[james blunt]

Funny that nobody else seems to think those are the *actual* laws of physics (including those trained in physics) and nobody else considers those axioms to be realistic.

That is what makes your ideas 'fake science': they have no actual connection to any real science at all.

Really ? That is strange because I could provide every wiki link that is your basic physics and the very physics I am using .

 

[james blunt]

Nope - still gibberish.

Nope , it is accurate , you need learn some maths ,

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're another clueless one , I've defined the terms .

e and +1e are your own terms for one , S is entropy , you obviously don't know any maths .

Still gibberish.

Keep hitting that tree with your head.

 

[Polymath257]

Really ? That is strange because I could provide every wiki link that is your basic physics and the very physics I am using .

Given that you cna't even do basic math, I'm sure your comprehension is faulty when you read those links.

And no, that you have been doing this for decades is NOT evidence that you understand what you are talking about. The stuff you write is quite enough to show you do not.