• 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
I've now started 3 of my contents .

3. Binary energy particle ( A quantum singularity )

In the previous section , we discussed Micro Bangs in which was demonstrated , a mono-pole point charge manifestation has no mechanism to retain form or density, in an infinite volume of lesser energy absolute space . Thus leading us to consider the aspects of how a binary energy point particle could manifest and retain its form and density to remain in existence . A binary is something based of two parts , in consideration of this I ask you to preliminary accept Q- and Q+ in being the two individual parts that will construct the binary energy particle and proposed Quantum singularity that started the beginning of meaningful time .
We will now consider any random point of space , we'll now also consider a simultaneous manifestation of Q- and Q+ at this given point , both opposite charged mono-poles simultaneously occupying the same point .


I just have one question , are you starting to understand yet ?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Um, no. Being attracted and having strong bonds is NOT the same as addition, nor does it say the sum is 1.
Yes it does , an electron and a proton add up to 1 atom.

Thanks for my first LOL of the day. Once again you show that you have no idea at all about maths or about how it works in science.

1E³ then is an expansion of 1 .

What's E? What do you mean by expansion? This is just gibberish.

Don't forget in the laws of charge , a neg or pos charge is attracted to neutral charge .

Incorrect.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Thanks for my first LOL of the day. Once again you show that you have no idea at all about maths or about how it works in science.



What's E? What do you mean by expansion? This is just gibberish.



Incorrect.
Anyone who knows science knows that E generally represent energy . Any one know maths that 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.

Pfff.........
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
1aa.jpg
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No it isn't , you do realise that 1E³ is 1 * E³ ?

-sigh- 1 * E³ = E³ if it also equals 1, then E = 1 (ignoring the two complex roots).

So we have energy = 1. One joule? What energy are you talking about? What's it the energy of?

As I said, it's totally obvious you have no clue what a scientific theory even is or how it might use mathematics. This is pointless...
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
-sigh- 1 * E³ = E³ if it also equals 1, then E = 1 (ignoring the two complex roots).

So we have energy = 1. One joule? What energy are you talking about? What's it the energy of?

As I said, it's totally obvious you have no clue what a scientific theory even is or how it might use mathematics. This is pointless...
It's pointless or you don't really understand it yet properly ?

Try this diagram ...I'm so far ahead of physics they don't understand ..............

1aaa.jpg
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's pointless or you don't really understand it yet properly ?

I mean you're posting gibberish, that you can't explain. You can't even explain the simplest of your pretend equations. You didn't answer my questions: we had E = 1, energy of what is 1 what?

Oh, never mind - enjoy your little fantasy.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
I mean you're posting gibberish, that you can't explain. You can't even explain the simplest of your pretend equations. You didn't answer my questions: we had E = 1, energy of what is 1 what?

Oh, never mind - enjoy your little fantasy.

Electrostatic energy , Q- + Q+ = 1N

1N is one electrical neutral energy particle .

Perhaps it will help you understand if I show you my revised version of an atom . I have a typo on the diagram, please ignore.

at.jpg
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
It's difficult to explain but it brief Q- and Q+ manifest simultaneous at the exact same point , ZPE . This point then self inflates to form a hollow sphere with a dense interwoven shell , a field interior and a field exterior .
6 on my contents , not written yet .
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
OK, I'm out. I'm tired of trying to make sense of nonsense.
I'm trying so hard to get you to understand . I've done an edit for anyone interested !

2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).

We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) to form at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested is seemingly imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly occurred.

The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best ''guess'' of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, proposing opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .

The Universe inside and out considers the conditions of a very high-density and high-temperature state , firstly recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing spatial volume to exist in or occur in . Thus concluding a pre-existing absolute space as explained prior in section 1 .

The Universe inside and out now explores the physics involved and what would happen to a manifested mono-pole point charge that manifested at any given point of space. In conceptual thought of a point charge namely zero point energy , it would be seemingly apparent that the surrounding spatial points of the ZPE point would be a lesser energy , less dense state , than the higher density , higher energy state of the point charge .
In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , a higher energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . In the second law of thermodynamics ,heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature. To assume a point charge does not function the same way would seem unrealistic ! To propose that a manifested mono-pole point charge undergoes a temporal transition changing from one state or condition to another over a period of time , would seem realistic and an evidental proposal based on thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .

One could suggest that the point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the natural self drive mechanism of higher energy temporal transition to lower energy state points . This would seem a ''true'' assumption and for our understanding the Universe inside and out proposes and requests you accept the self annihilation to be namely , The Micro bang process .

The proposed micro bang process , from the instant of manifestation of a mono-pole electrostatic point charge , ZPE ! It is instantly attracted to all the surrounding lesser energy space in an isotropic manner , a conditional and natural transitional state , causality of self annihilation .
Additionally , because the manifested charge is instantly in a state of self annihilation , the density is instantly weakened beyond the magnitude needed to create a strong binary force , which we'll be discussing in section 3.

It's difficult to express the temporal transition of energy changing from one state or condition to another mathematically in terms of units and values. The infinitive of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant .

To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang process requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . Additionally the Micro bang process 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 process expresses :

1) Q- / k = 0

A mono-pole point negative charge divided by an infinite volume of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence to zero magnitude and zero density .

2) Q+ / k = 0

A mono-pole point positive charge divided by lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence zero magnitude and zero density .
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
OK, I'm out. I'm tired of trying to make sense of nonsense.
You can't say you have not been warned. :D

But now you have had the authentic Theorist experience. In a ghastly way, one has to admire the technique. There is a sort of art to the combination of rubbish with just sufficient glimmers of faint understanding that can sucker respondents into continuing the dialogue. As we've speculated before, it is sometimes almost good enough to be deliberate. But it never goes anywhere. Just attention-seeking.

Theorist, xyz, Antoine, Amber, Loverbal, Sustainer, James Blunt, Dave, C John P.......sometimes male sometimes female, but united in one goal: to waste the time of scientists.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we all agree upon definition and semantics . Firstly I would like to draw our attention to the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

Please try again and try reading this time !

It would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates .

Added - Evidence: Tests of general relativity


Does not test the seven postulates .

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

Can you provide any shred of evidence to show falsity of postulate one ?

I already know you can't !
You are the one who is postulating, JB, therefore you are the one who supposed to show evidences that support your postulations.

Your postulation isn’t “true” by default.

You don’t tell us your claims and expect other people to test your claim for you.

You make a positive claim with your postulations, therefore you must be the one to test each one, documented your test results or your evidences, so that other people can review.

No hypotheses or theories are true by default, when scientists formulate their hypotheses or theories. They have to be tested before any of them can become true.

You have not tested a single postulation of yours, so you are the one who hasn’t done your diligence of providing the evidences.

This is what I can’t stand about creationists. They tell us what they want us to believe and demand we should agree with them, without doing any hard work themselves.

Sorry, mate, but you are the one who show us the evidences, not us, otherwise your all your postulating are nothing more than empty words.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No, you are reciting space-time , ignoring the postulates that show space-time occupies immovable space . You are pre-judging on one chapter and not considering the provided facts .

Can you provide just one example of how space can be destroyed ?

Can you not understand the provided definition of space ?
You have provided no facts, JB.

All you did was provide 7 nonsensical claims without a single evidence to support any of them.
 

james blunt

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but I need to ignore all the negativity for now and ask for help with maths .

Please help describe this in maths

I need a symbol for charge

I need a symbol for an infinite volume of space


I need


charge / infinite volume of space

Charge divided by infinite volume of space
 
Top