Can religion reject this science ?

[gnostic]

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 ...

No, you are wrong.

You didn’t ratiocinator’s correction of your mistake.

For example, E = mc² equation is energy.

But you think this equation is wrong and claimed it is equation for momentum:

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

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 .

Yes, momentum is mass x speed, but mass x a square of speed is energy.

You are wrong, ratiocinator is right.

Learn from this experience, and get over this superior complex that you think you have.

 

[james blunt]

No, you are wrong.

You didn’t ratiocinator’s correction of your mistake.

For example, E = mc² equation is energy.

But you think this equation is wrong and claimed it is equation for momentum:




Yes, momentum is mass x speed, but mass x a square of speed is energy.

You are wrong, ratiocinator is right.

Learn from this experience, and get over this superior complex that you think you have.

Mass times a speed squared is energy ? No way ! That makes no sense . Why would a speed be needed for energy ? It wouldn't ....

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would a speed be needed for energy ? It wouldn't ....

Err... never heard of kinetic energy?

And you say you know enough science to see mistakes...

 

[james blunt]

Err... never heard of kinetic energy?

And you say you know enough science to see mistakes...

I've heard of kE obviously , however that is also a invalid argument . Speed is not required for energy , have you ever heard of zero point energy ?

E = A + B / t

Which is stating E= m/t no c required

mE³ / R^n = delta t

 

[ratiocinator]

I've heard of kE obviously , however that is also a invalid argument . Speed is not required for energy...

I didn't say that it was - this is a much simpler point about units. The units of energy are kilograms times metres squared per squared seconds:

See: joule. That is true for all types of energy.

This is basic, basic, school level physics that you obviously don't understand and which makes your claim to have found mistakes in advanced physics utterly laughable.

have you ever heard of zero point energy ?

Yes - but you don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand it - and its units are exactly the same as every other form of energy.

E = A + B / t

Which is stating E= m/t no c required

mE³ / R^n = delta t

Gibberish.

 

[james blunt]

Gibberish.

It's only gibberish to you because like I don't understand some of your maths because I've not learn't it , the same applies to you .

Can we start fresh ?

My formula explains the process in a form different than words . I describe the physics involved in the process using the appropriate symbols .

A charge Q distributed over an unspecified volume of space R^n

Q / R^n

Does that make sense now to you ?

You'd probably express +1e / V volume

But a volume has dimension specifics where R^n is unspecified .

E / R^n = 4/3 pi r³ where E in bold is electrical field .

Q / R^n what this is saying in general and a brief account Q / 2 / 4 / 6 / 8 ............./ n

1 / 2 = 0.5 So in the instant 1 loses half its magnitude and density

0.5 / 4 = 0.125 and so on until 0 is reached .

More technically though I start with

Q / 64 = 0.015625

This is point math and the proposal that 64 points surround a center point .



1 / > 1 = <1

E / <E = <1

Can you read it yet ?

In the next layer

Q / 81 = 0.01234567901

And interestingly the third layer

Q / 100 = 0.01

 

[ratiocinator]

E / R^n = 4/3 pi r³ where E in bold is electrical field .

Nope.

Q / R^n what this is saying in general and a brief account Q / 2 / 4 / 6 / 8 ............./ n

1 / 2 = 0.5 So in the instant 1 loses half its magnitude and density

More gibberish.

Seriously, you don't have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of producing any new science until you learn current science, how it works, how it uses mathematics, and why it is accepted.

 

[james blunt]

Nope.

More gibberish.

Seriously, you don't have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of producing any new science until you learn current science, how it works, how it uses mathematics, and why it is accepted.

Did you even read what I wrote ?

Obviously not !

My formula explains the process in a form different than words . I describe the physics involved in the process using the appropriate symbols .

Try a question .

Please describe in math a point energy distributing to surrounding points ?

 

[Polymath257]

Mass times a speed squared is energy ? No way ! That makes no sense . Why would a speed be needed for energy ? It wouldn't ....

Kinetic energy, the energy of motion. As the speed goes up, so does the kinetic energy. And the formula?

KE=(1/2) m v^2

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

STILL with this???

 

[Polymath257]

I've heard of kE obviously , however that is also a invalid argument . Speed is not required for energy , have you ever heard of zero point energy ? t

Zero point energy of an oscillator:

E=hf

where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.

Now, frequency has units of 1/time. And the units of Planck's constant can be seen from the uncertainty principle: Δp Δx >=h. Here, p is momentum (mass times velocity) and x is position, so H has units of mass*velocity*position and the energy has units of

mass* velocity* position/time=mass*velocity*velocity=mass*(velocity)^2

So, yes, zero point energy also has units of mass times the square of velocity.

 

[james blunt]

Zero point energy of an oscillator:

E=hf

where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.

Now, frequency has units of 1/time. And the units of Planck's constant can be seen from the uncertainty principle: Δp Δx >=h. Here, p is momentum (mass times velocity) and x is position, so H has units of mass*velocity*position and the energy has units of

mass* velocity* position/time=mass*velocity*velocity=mass*(velocity)^2

So, yes, zero point energy also has units of mass times the square of velocity.

Well , I've used hf before and guess what ?

They said that was wrong also .

I did get Kmax = hf / S correct ...

Δp Δx = <E

 

[Polymath257]

Well , I've used hf before and guess what ?

They said that was wrong also .

View attachment 27156

Well, that *is* wrong. Actually, it's more meaningless than wrong.

I did get Kmax = hf / S correct ...

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[james blunt]

Well, that *is* wrong. Actually, it's more meaningless than wrong.



Whatever that is supposed to mean.

It's not meaningless and the kE max of an entropy/system is hf / S

 

[Polymath257]

It's not meaningless and the kE max of an entropy is hf / S

Again, wrong because the units don't even match.

 

[james blunt]

Again, wrong because the units don't even match.

That's interesting , a different moderator on another forum who does maths said that was correct .

 

[Polymath257]

That's interesting , a different moderator on another forum who does maths said that was correct .

Either
1. The moderator was wrong.
2. The moderator didn't want to have to deal with more nonsense.
3. You misunderstood what the moderator was saying.

 

[james blunt]

Either
1. The moderator was wrong.
2. The moderator didn't want to have to deal with more nonsense.
3. You misunderstood what the moderator was saying.

Maybe !

You say I can use hf to represent a point charge ?

What would you use for an unspecified volume of space ?

Please help me .

If S = xyzE

Then hf / S seems correct?

How about

hf / V^n where V is volume and n is unspecified ?

 

[Polymath257]

It's only gibberish to you because like I don't understand some of your maths because I've not learn't it , the same applies to you .

Can we start fresh ?

My formula explains the process in a form different than words . I describe the physics involved in the process using the appropriate symbols .

A charge Q distributed over an unspecified volume of space R^n

Q / R^n

Does that make sense now to you ?

No. You only gave a phrase, not a sentence. You said a charge distributed over a volume. That gives a charge density. So what?

You'd probably express +1e / V volume

But a volume has dimension specifics where R^n is unspecified .

E / R^n = 4/3 pi r³ where E in bold is electrical field .

Um, no. The left hand side is a charge density and the right hand side is a volume of a sphere. They cannot be the same.

Q / R^n what this is saying in general and a brief account Q / 2 / 4 / 6 / 8 ............./ n

Gibberish.

1 / 2 = 0.5 So in the instant 1 loses half its magnitude and density

0.5 / 4 = 0.125 and so on until 0 is reached .

More technically though I start with

Q / 64 = 0.015625

This is point math and the proposal that 64 points surround a center point .

Complete gibberish.

1 / > 1 = <1

E / <E = <1

Can you read it yet ?

In the next layer

Q / 81 = 0.01234567901

And interestingly the third layer

Q / 100 = 0.01

What you have posted is nonsense, pure and simple. That you *think* it makes sense only shows you don't understand the basics of physics. Yes, even though you have been doing this for years. The time you have been doing this is irrelevant if you don't actually grasp the basic concepts, which you don't.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe !

You say I can use hf to represent a point charge ?

No. i said you can use this for the zero point energy (actually, the ZPE is half of this, but the units are the same).

What would you use for an unspecified volume of space ?

V, for volume.

Please help me .

If S = xyzE

Then hf / S seems correct?

How about

hf / V^n where V is volume and n is unspecified ?

None of these make sense. The last is particularly bad.