Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Unless you are willing to learn what sort of errors that you make what point is there in me explaining your errors to you?
-
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
james blunt
Well-Known Member
You said my prior equation could be interpreted as correct !
So please explain the error ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That tells us that you did not even understand how to read your first equation and that I was right when I pointed out that you are merely parroting.
Unless you admit that you know almost nothing as far as the sciences go there is no point in going on.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
The rest is the same equation so therefore you can't agree then disagree . I suggest to you that you didn't understand the following equations although they are the same .
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I'd have to lie to do that !
Ok , I know nothing , tell me oh wise one , how do you divide a point charge by an unknown volume of space ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
james blunt
Well-Known Member
After about a decade of self study and research , countless science forum conversations, you really think I don't know science ?
Of course I know science , granted I don't everything such as all maths but I can hold a conversation on science .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You demonstrate that you do not understand it every time that you post. In fact you have declared your thoughts not to be scientific more than once, though you do not understand that you did that.
All that you can do is to parrot. And math is extremely important in the sciences. Physics more so than any other science. If you can't do the math you can't understand or "do" physics.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
That's garbage .......I can talk about mainstream physics all day long but I choose to have my own theory which is better . So perhaps it's time you come down off the high horse because my physics is great physics .
My maths works , you already agreed when you said my equation was correct . You can't agree then change your mind to suit !
If this is correct then so are the rest of my equations ...and parrot ?
Last edited:
james blunt
Well-Known Member
1E³ ∝ 4 / 3 pi r³
Thermal expansion - Wikipedia
A cold object or an object with a lesser energy state , attracts heat and / or a greater energy state . An object will do this in an isotropic manner hence *E³ .
Thermal expansion - Wikipedia
A cold object or an object with a lesser energy state , attracts heat and / or a greater energy state . An object will do this in an isotropic manner hence *E³ .
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is a way of reading that so that it is correct (although utterly trivial), not so the others.
What do you think it says in words?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It says that if I start with one and divided it by a bigger one , then the original 1 would become less magnitude and less density .
You can call it the inverse square law if it helps .
Or you could try
1 / dx = 0
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope you can't. And your math is garbage. It is merely parroting that you do not understand yourself.
And again, until you admit that you do not understand math or physics there is no point in trying to help you with basic math.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I understand the maths I've created for my theory and it works ..........no parroting .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You can't have a "bigger 1", nor can an "original 1" become "less magnitude" and numbers don't have density. The (only) way that 1/(>1) =< 1 makes sense is as 1 divided by some number bigger than one is less than or equal to 1, which is trivial.
I'll add "inverse square law" to the long list of things you haven't a clue about.
Back to total nonsense.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We have been over why we know that you do not understand the math. Claiming that you understand math when you fail at simple problems tells us that this is not the case.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
That also garbage , I can't create a set of maths if I didn't understand it . I've also explained it enough times already to demonstrate I understand it !
Maths is envisioning a process then describing it in a form other than words . Creating a physical picture in your mind and placing values in the picture .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have never "created a set of maths". You have only parroted. This is shown by your inability to communicate your ideas.
How about I give you another chance to tell us that you are not using science? Is that reasonable?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I am using science though , ''your'' forces and your symbols etc .
Isn't it reasonable to give me the benefit of the doubt that I actual do know quite a bit of scientific knowledge ? The same knowledge I'm using in my theory ?
Q is representative of an electrical charge , R^n is representative of an unspecified volume of real coordinate space .
1 / >1 does equal <1 ....so therefore -Q / R^n = 0 is a true statement because 0 is definitely less than 1 in whole numbers .
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, I am not paying any more attention to your nonsense. Until you mend your ways I am putting you on ignore. You are going to have to convince someone else that you learned something ad have them alert me.