Can religion reject this science ?

[james blunt]

Still gibberish.

Keep hitting that tree with your head.

I suggest you go learn some maths , it is accurate .

 

[Polymath257]

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

Oh, the ironies!

You have shown you cannot do even elementary school level math.

 

[james blunt]

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.

My stuff is advanced stuff and new stuff , it is not me who does not understand physics . I know very well what I am talking about and the physics I'm using .
Physics is easy .............

 

[james blunt]

Oh, the ironies!

You have shown you cannot do even elementary school level math.

Incorrect , I have shown I have not learned some elementary school level math because I have no use for it .


''cannot do'' is not the same as don't need to do because I have no use for it . If in the long term I need to know something of basic math , I'll look it up and learn myself how to do it by mimicking the source I look up .

 

[Polymath257]

My stuff is advanced stuff and new stuff , it is not me who does not understand physics . I know very well what I am talking about and the physics I'm using .
Physics is easy .............

if it were 'advanced', you would be able to do the basics. You have shown you cannot.

Also, I have a PhD in math. New math isn't strange to me. I see new math every day of my life. It is my job to create new math.

What you have shown isn't new math. It is nonsense. Pure and simple.

It is also quite clear that you have NO understanding of even basic physics. You have learned a few key words, but put them together almost randomly. Again, what you actually write is quite enough to show you don't understand either math or physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Incorrect , I have shown I have not learned some elementary school level math because I have no use for it .


''cannot do'' is not the same as don't need to do because I have no use for it . If in the long term I need to know something of basic math , I'll look it up and learn myself how to do it by mimicking the source I look up .

And in your case, you cannot do. You also cannot do basic physics.

 

[james blunt]

if it were 'advanced', you would be able to do the basics. You have shown you cannot.

Also, I have a PhD in math. Newmath isn't strange to me. I see new math every day of my life. It is my job to create new math.

What you have shown isn't new math. It is nonsense. Pure and simple.

It is also quite clear that you have NO understanding of even basic physics. You have learned a few key words, but put them together almost randomly. Again, what you actually write is quite enough to show you don't understand either math or physics.

Huh ? The maths I provided is simple and easy to understand , I find it strange you can't read it !

Would you like to go through it step by step with me ?

Let us start by me asking you a question ?

What sign or symbol would you use to represent a negative electrical charge ?

 

[Polymath257]

Huh ? The maths I provided is simple and easy to understand , I find it strange you can't read it !

Would you like to go through it step by step with me ?

Let us start by me asking you a question ?

What sign or symbol would you use to represent a negative electrical charge ?

Usually, -Q. Measured in Coulombs. But, depending on context, I might use Q for any number of other things. So it is required that before you write a formula you state precisely what your symbols mean.

 

[james blunt]

Usually, -Q. Measured in Coulombs. But, depending on context, I might use Q for any number of other things. So it is required that before you write a formula you state precisely what your symbols mean.

Ok, so I am using the Q too , so how is this incorrect ?

It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . 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).


You're saying you don't understand this ?


Moving on , So we now have a manifested point charge Q- , you have already admitted to Q is ok for use .

So I now want this charge to be split up by infinite space

You'd use the divide sign ?

Q- /

????

So what sign or symbol would you use to represent infinite space ?

The Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space

I am sure you're aware that any value divided by infinite gives the result of 0 ?

Q- / k = 0

Do you disagree with this still?

Momentum , P(E) = E / <E ( There should be a direction arrow above the P but I don't know how to do that with a keyboard ).

Force , F = <E

Now will you take you me serious ??

Added - reality

 

[ratiocinator]

The Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space

It makes literally no sense to say that "infinite absolute space" is a value (a number). How do I calculate what number set k to in any given physical situation?

So I now want this charge to be split up by infinite space

That's more gibberish. Split up how?

Momentum , P(E) = E / <E ( There should be a direction arrow above the P but I don't know how to do that with a keyboard ).

The "/<" is still meaningless.

Force , F = <E

Assuming E is energy, this says "force equal less than energy" - which is more gibberish.

Now will you take you me serious ??

You will never be taken seriously until you learn something and stop trying to pretend...

 

[james blunt]

It makes literally no sense to say that "infinite absolute space" is a value (a number). How do I calculate what number set k to in any given physical situation?

.

It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . 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).

Have any of you even read the theory ?

I'm making sense of that which makes no sense, it does make sense if we give it representation .

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so I am using the Q too , so how is this incorrect ?

It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values ,

And yet, standard physics does so quite nicely.

XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space .

OK, you just went into nonsense.

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).

You're saying you don't understand this ?

OK, so you are postulating both a positively charged monopole and a negatively charged one. Are you assuming they are oppose *magnetically* as well as electrically?

Moving on , So we now have a manifested point charge Q- , you have already admitted to Q is ok for use .

So I now want this charge to be split up by infinite space

Split up in what way? Distributed across such space? Broken up into pieces? Are you physically moving the charge around or are you saying that you have a charge density distributed through space?

You'd use the divide sign ?

Q- /

????

No, I would not. To divide a charge by a volume (space) gives a charge density. Now, if I am talking about the dynamics, I would use ⍴ to describe the charge density at any location and time, then consider the derivatives of that in various directions and in time.

So what sign or symbol would you use to represent infinite space ?

Well, usually something like R^3 to represent 3 dimensional space.

The Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space

Do you mean the space itself or the volume of that space? They are different things.

I am sure you're aware that any value divided by infinite gives the result of 0 ?

Technically, no. The limit is zero as the denominator gets large.

Q- / k = 0

OK, so this says that the charge density obtained when a charge is uniformly distributed in an infinite volume is zero.

Do you disagree with this still?

Given that you aren't being clear about the meanings of your terms, there is nothing to agree with. Is k the space itself (in which case you can't divide by it) or is it the volume of that space (which is infinite)? Are you simply saying that the charge density is zero? if so, so what?

Momentum , P(E) = E / <E ( There should be a direction arrow above the P but I don't know how to do that with a keyboard ).

Force , F = <E

Now will you take you me serious ??

Now you have really gone off the deep end. Go back and take it slowly. What are you trying to say here?

It *looks* like you are saying that momentum is equal to energy divided by something, but the string of symbols here makes no sense. Even saying the momentum equals the energy makes no sense. Energy and momentum are different types of things (which, even with a basic understanding of physics, you would know).

Then, you say F=<E, which seems to say that the force is less than or equal to the energy. But that makes no sense at all: energy and force are very different concepts and cannot be directly compared at all. It's like trying to say the temperature of something is smaller than its speed. The comparison itself makes no sense.

No, at this point, I know there is nothing here to be taken seriously.

 

[Polymath257]

It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . 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).

Have any of you even read the theory ?

I read the statement you made. That is very, very, very far from being a theory.

I'm making sense of that which makes no sense, it does make sense if we give it representation .

Gibberish.

 

[james blunt]

I read the statement you made. That is very, very, very far from being a theory.



Gibberish.

I'll respond to your bigger post in a while when I have got my head around the effort , I applaud you .

I don't think you understand infinite , infinite has no dimensions it is an unlimited volume , n-dimensional , we can't define a R³ real coordinate space to it , that is a finite value of the interior and different maths than before the ''big bang'' . Time hasn't even started yet , time is trying to ''kick in'' by particles popping into and out of existence . MY theory answers most of your questions , may I suggest you read over the micro bang section again and consider what it says about spectral emissions .

 

[james blunt]

Then, you say F=<E, which seems to say that the force is less than or equal to the energy. But that makes no sense at all: energy and force are very different concepts and cannot be directly compared at all. It's like trying to say the temperature of something is smaller than its speed. The comparison itself makes no sense.

I can answer this , somebody as helped me to correct it elsewhere , F<E is the correct term and momentum P , P<E

Newtons first law of motion advanced ,

An object will remain in motion because P<E and F<E

 

[Polymath257]

I'll respond to your bigger post in a while when I have got my head around the effort , I applaud you .

I don't think you understand infinite , infinite has no dimensions it is an unlimited volume

I assure you I deal with infinite sets and quantities all the time.

You just contradicted yourself. If it has a volume, it has the dimensions of volume. Alternatively, volumes are three dimensional quantities. There are two definitions of the word 'dimension' here. That you can't seem to separate them shows you lack of understanding of some basic concepts.

, n-dimensional ,

OK, so it is an n-dimensional volume? So, it has dimensions of (meters)^n?

we can't define a R³ real coordinate space to it , that is a finite value of the interior and different maths than before the ''big bang'' .

This sentence literally makes no sense.

Time hasn't even started yet ,

Irrelevant to what we are discussing. Time is just another coordinate.

time is trying to ''kick in'' by particles popping into and out of existence . MY theory answers most of your questions , may I suggest you read over the micro bang section again and consider what it says about spectral emissions

I thought we were taking this step by step. You have not yet mentioned spectral emissions nor have you actually given a theory. You have a paragraph stating how it is difficult to do something, but that isn't a theory. it's the avoidance of a theory.

 

[james blunt]

Given that you aren't being clear about the meanings of your terms, there is nothing to agree with. Is k the space itself (in which case you can't divide by it) or is it the volume of that space (which is infinite)? Are you simply saying that the charge density is zero? if so, so what?



.

Yes you got it , Q- / k = 0

Popped into and out of existence is the so what , the rudiment of energy before the big bang . Space-time trying to begin ....ok you must have it now ?

Were still on this step aren't we ?

Could you make your posts smaller please, it is confusing me slightly , too much in one go .

 

[Polymath257]

I can answer this , somebody as helped me to correct it elsewhere , F<E is the correct term and momentum P , P<E

Again, both inequalities are nonsense and show you don't grasp some basics. Force and energy aren't even the same *type* of quantities, so cannot be compared. The same is true for momentum and energy.

Newtons first law of motion advanced ,

An object will remain in motion because P<E and F<E

Sorry, that is hardly an advance. Newton's basic law is F=ma: the force on an object is the same as its mass times its acceleration. What you have written has no connection to that at all.

 

[james blunt]

Again, both inequalities are nonsense and show you don't grasp some basics. Force and energy aren't even the same *type* of quantities, so cannot be compared. The same is true for momentum and energy.



Sorry, that is hardly an advance. Newton's basic law is F=ma: the force on an object is the same as its mass times its acceleration. What you have written has no connection to that at all.

I don't think you are really listening , please go back to the Q- post , you understood then .

 

[james blunt]

Yes you got it , Q- / k = 0

Popped into and out of existence is the so what , the rudiment of energy before the big bang . Space-time trying to begin ....ok you must have it now ?

Were still on this step aren't we ?

Could you make your posts smaller please, it is confusing me slightly , too much in one go .

This ...