Can religion reject this science ?

[james blunt]

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.

No loss to me sorry , you can't understand simple maths .

He'd never cope with (-Q) + (+Q) / R^n = 1E³/ t = 4/3 pi r³ / t

 

[Prestor John]

Strange that you have not asked for sources for the more recent corrections of your errors.

I thought it was obvious from my earlier post, but I have observed through my many discussion with you that you never provide any supporting evidence to back up your many claims.

You always come up with some absurd reason to never "prove" what you always claim is so easily "provable".

So, in light of my earlier post, why would I ever ask you to provide sources when you never do?

 

[Prestor John]

What Subduction Zone said.

Plus, even when soil has been dried after over the centuries and even millennia, it would still show signs of saturation and compaction, by noting the different colours of that layer of sediments.

In the case of ancient towns and cities being flooded, you would see evidences of man-made debris and waste being jumbled/mixed together and deposited in certain area, covered what used to be mud.

And speaking of mud, it would leave evidences on the walls of buildings, eg houses, palaces, temples, tombs, etc. Water would also saturate the walls, often leaving marks of the heights of floodwater had reached.

Flood in towns and cities, leaving different evidences to those that have succumbed to fire outbreaks, earthquakes and destruction of wars, like sieges.

Experts (which I am not) would know all this, where to find what evidences left behind, and what disasters, natural or man-made, had caused it.

Do you think experts can’t tell?

ps I said that I am not expert investigating natural disasters, searching for evidences in ancient sites, but I was a former civil engineer, and over the years I hear how these experts know certain things that are outside my areas of expertise, so I pick up information here and there. In any case, though my works have been designing for modern buildings and public works (not ancient ones), I do understand a few things about geology and soils.

I am no expert either, but the words "saturation" and "compaction" seem to rely on there being a significant amount of time of immersion.

Would these things be noticed in a flash flood event?

 

[Milton Platt]

The Universe Inside and Out !


Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a journey of discovery that considers past science and present science . A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .
The Universe inside and out makes reference to Dirac , Newton , Higg's , Tesla and Einstein , concluding an united field theory namely the N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space.
Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the nature of light and the nature of time .


Chapter One - Absolute Newtonian Space .

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.

It is important we do not change the context of our definitions where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

In consideration of what is space ?

I propose that space is the single property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and true to observation , it would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence to the contrary !



(To be continued , comments thus far ? )

Last edited: 3 minutes ago

If space is immovable, how can mass bend it when it travels through it?

 

[ratiocinator]

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 .

There you go - proof beyond reasonable doubt that you don't have a clue.

The (trivially obvious) fact that 1 divided by some number greater than one is less than one, cannot possibly tell you anything about your charge density.

Not only do you not understand either maths or science but you don't understand how they work together.

He'd never cope with (-Q) + (+Q) / R^n = 1E³/ t = 4/3 pi r³ / t

That will be because it's meaningless.

Assuming your variables have to normal interpretation, a charge plus a charge density cannot be equal to an energy cubed over a time (and writing 1E is pointless, it just means E) and that can't be equal to a distance cubed divided by a time. Once again, your units don't match. In terms of physics, it's gibberish.

Look, a real equation in science not only has matching units, it tells us something useful about the world. Take Newtonian gravity:

We could now take that, put the masses of (say) the earth and moon into it, together with the distance between them and then, get out a calculator and determine the force of gravity between them. It's a general rule that can be applied to a specific situation by putting the right numbers into it.

You can check it makes basic sense by checking that the units are the same on both sides of the '='. It can then be tested in the real world.

You need to be thinking in those terms. Do your units match? What is the general rule you're trying to express? What do all the symbols mean? What specific situations can it be applied to? How do people know what numbers to put into it to do a meaningful calculation that tells them something specific that can be tested and measured?

But first you need to learn basic maths (including arithmetic with negative numbers) and physics.

 

[james blunt]

There you go - proof beyond reasonable doubt that you don't have a clue.

The (trivially obvious) fact that 1 divided by some number greater than one is less than one, cannot possibly tell you anything about your charge density.

Not only do you not understand either maths or science but you don't understand how they work together.



That will be because it's meaningless.

Assuming your variables have to normal interpretation, a charge plus a charge density cannot be equal to an energy cubed over a time (and writing 1E is pointless, it just means E) and that can't be equal to a distance cubed divided by a time. Once again, your units don't match. In terms of physics, it's gibberish.

Look, a real equation in science not only has matching units, it tells us something useful about the world. Take Newtonian gravity:

We could now take that, put the masses of (say) the earth and moon into it, together with the distance between them and then, get out a calculator and determine the force of gravity between them. It's a general rule that can be applied to a specific situation by putting the right numbers into it.

You can check it makes basic sense by checking that the units are the same on both sides of the '='. It can then be tested in the real world.

You need to be thinking in those terms. Do your units match? What is the general rule you're trying to express? What do all the symbols mean? What specific situations can it be applied to? How do people know what numbers to put into it to do a meaningful calculation that tells them something specific that can be tested and measured?

But first you need to learn basic maths (including arithmetic with negative numbers) and physics.

People are so clueless !

How big is one ?

It can be infinitesimally small or any value to infinite .......


1 / >1 = 0

think

I can't put 1 / ∞ = 0

1E³ says 1 times energy cubed , can't you read math ?

How about if I wrote it mE³


would you understand that ?

Because mc² is pointless garbage

mass * speed

Mass*speed is force not E

You don't even know what mass is also , which is funny .

Einstein dressed Newtons work up .....

I know by basic physics , if I took a metal sphere that has a volume and add energy cubed , the sphere expands

1E³ = > 4/3 pi r³

p.s that equation you give is not a gravity mechanism equation as such , it is a distance equation ...

(-Q) + (+Q) = m is a gravity mechanism equation, but the mass is only half of the total mass of force .

Because F1 + F2 = total mass


added -

((-Q) + (+Q) ) / t * E³ = > 4/3 pi r³


Easy math and correct , that explains the universal growth .

Total big bang process my version


1) E / R^n

2) ((-Q) + (+Q) ) / t = 1

3) 1E³ = >4/3 pi r³

1 = 5 dimensional manifold of xyzE and entropy (S)

delta t = delta S

In accordance with experiment .

Delta S = Delta (1E³ / R^n ) / t

Ping and pong , tick and tock ....

Don't believe me ? It is experimentally proven ...Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia

Because 1E³ + v = <E³ = less output ....

P.s yes I can draw it and explain it using the Doppler shift .

When an object moves away from you the rear end is <E³ of the object .

The velocity creates a linear and levitates the force of the E³ in the linear direction .

I'm a misunderstood genius and science is becoming very close to me saying stuff it ....All I ever wanted was a respectful conversation , I respect science knowledge .

 

[james blunt]

If space is immovable, how can mass bend it when it travels through it?

Mass objects curves field mass

N><N = N<>N

Thats just a G thing .....


F<E = P where P is momentum

Newton stuff.....advanced...

1E³ is centripetal pull ......hint it curves space-time energy inwards...

Einstein advanced

Think about my theory wrote so far ....

Newton - absolute space
Dirac -particles popping into and out of existence
Coulombs - law of charges and binaries of opposite charge

Do you still think I am making it up ?

The next section covers Higg's , Dirac , Newton , Einstein ,Tesla and black holes....I've not written it yet because I have no encouragement .

Contents:​

⦁ Introduction : page 2-3


⦁ Absolute Newtonian space : pages 4-9


⦁ Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points) : pages 10-14


⦁ Binary energy particle (A quantum singularity) : pages 15-19


⦁ Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion) : pages 20-24


⦁ The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)


⦁ The N-field theory (Atomic matter)


⦁ The gravity mechanism


⦁ The nature of light


⦁ The meaning of time

6 on my contents is a huge write up . It explains that the prior mentioned were all considering the same thing , the interior field of a black hole . I explain all this and much more , I and the Universe are one , I am not independent of the energy , I and you are dependent to (1E³ / t) / R^n / t , that is the time mechanism , the tick and tock of aging .

My theory will perhaps make more sense to you if I explain two forces at work .

1) Centripetal F>E

2) Centrifugal F<E

 

[james blunt]

I was saving some of this stuff for book two , my special theory ''stuff'' .

An object will remain in motion because of the force pulling on it .

Remember my spaceship design ?

Your spaceship designers are rather hopeless when considering space travel .....

 

[ratiocinator]

Mass*speed is force not E

Actually, mass * speed = momentum, but that's the least of your problems.

I'm giving up again - you are talking utter nonsense and you refuse to learn, that's why nobody will take you seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to learn the basics.

 

[james blunt]

Actually, mass * speed = momentum,

So you are agreeing that mc² is not energy ?

Because c is a speed .....

 

[ratiocinator]

So you are agreeing that mc² is not energy ?

Because c is a speed .....

No mc² is energy. When you square a physical quantity, it also squares the units.

See: Derived units

 

[james blunt]

No mc² is energy. When you square a physical quantity, it also squares the units.

See: Derived units

No mc² is not energy because mass * speed is momentum , you already told me and c is a speed , so mass times speed squared makes no sense what so ever .

E = (-Q) + (+Q) / t no speed required or needed . The energy is proportional to its mass xyzE

 

[ratiocinator]

No mc² is energy. When you square a physical quantity, it also squares the units.

See: Derived units

No mc² is not energy because mass * speed is momentum , you already told me and c is a speed , so mass times speed squared makes no sense what so ever .

It's you who are making no sense. Whatever... you can carry on ignoring real science and indulge your bizarre fantasies if it makes you happy, but if you do, you will never be taken seriously.

Your choice.

 

[james blunt]

It's you who are making no sense. Whatever... you can carry on ignoring real science and indulge your bizarre fantasies if it makes you happy, but if you do, you will never be taken seriously.

Your choice.

I'll be taken more seriously if I ignore all the errors of present science , stop trying to present advanced science and just learn to repeat present information like some parrot ?

What a curious and strange world !

Have you not considered it is you that just simply doesn't understand my theory so can't comprehend it ? After all , you haven't read the pdf written so far , that is more explanatory .

 

[james blunt]

I've asked for math help and people had no idea , they said they can do maths but they can't really .

I created my own that works for my theory , what is the problem with that ?

1 / >1 = <1

It works doesn't it ?

 

[gnostic]

I'll be taken more seriously if I ignore all the errors of present science , stop trying to present advanced science and just learn to repeat present information like some parrot ?

What a curious and strange world !

What ratiocinator have been patiently explaining to you, is not advanced science at all...it is basic physics and maths, which clearly you don’t understand.

Basic as in high school level.

If you cannot even grasp the basic, how can you hope to understand more advanced fields in science and mathematics.

As to your equations, graphs and diagrams, they are not stroke of genius, because they are incoherent.

So many people have already explained to you where you want wrong, but you don’t want to listen, and clearly your ego have prevented you from learning from your mistakes...

...and there so many mistakes.

Mistakes that ratiocinator have corrected for you, but you are very insistent that everyone but you, are wrong. When you refused to recognize the mistakes you have made, you are only demonstrating your ignorance and your arrogance.

 

[james blunt]

What ratiocinator have been patiently explaining to you, is not advanced science at all...it is basic physics and maths, which clearly you don’t understand.

Basic as in high school level.

If you cannot even grasp the basic, how can you hope to understand more advanced fields in science and mathematics.

As to your equations, graphs and diagrams, they are not stroke of genius, because they are incoherent.

So many people have already explained to you where you want wrong, but you don’t want to listen, and clearly your ego have prevented you from learning from your mistakes...

...and there so many mistakes.

Mistakes that ratiocinator have corrected for you, but you are very insistent that everyone but you, are wrong. When you refused to recognize the mistakes you have made, you are only demonstrating your ignorance and your arrogance.

Actually the arrogance is of science ! For over a decade I've been pointing out errors they ignore . Mistakes I have corrected for them .


P.s My diagrams are spot on .....my notions are spot on ...

 

[JChnsc19]

Are you new here? Lol religion can reject every criticism you make of it. Yesterday I responded to a claim the Bible is 100% accurate by quoting a verse about unicorns but the apologetics will say I’m wrong , be assured of that

 

[james blunt]

Are you new here? Lol religion can reject every criticism you make of it. Yesterday I responded to a claim the Bible is 100% accurate by quoting a verse about unicorns but the apologetics will say I’m wrong , be assured of that

Well this thread is science mainly , some science is very made up !

 

[james blunt]

Anyway , I give up ! Trying to educate zombie robots is futile .