581
New Theories / Re: The N-field
« on: 27/03/2018 21:08:59 »
Yeah, of course you do. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Self diagnosed then. Guessed as much.
Self diagnosed then. Guessed as much.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Dont be such a condescending idiot. Whilst I didnt define it, the definition is accepted universally. I dont see the point of your argument, other than acting like a rather foolish child trying to show how clever he is.You did not define mass either, it is not your mistake , it is histories mistake, you can't see it wrong because it is what you learnt and think is correct.You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
It is not a discussion about an idea though is it though? It you crowing about universally accepted definitions of basic physics being wrong because you are too lazy to actually learn anything.'I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation'Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education. You can not have a discussion about an idea, you do not know how to discuss an idea. Saying a person is wrong just on the basis of posting present information , the information that I am showing is wrong, is not discussing my friend and not looking why it is wrong.
You have demonstrated constantly that you do. Look, he has found a new phrase.
You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-mass,-weight,-force-and-load-(faq-mass-and-density)
I suspect you are now just trolling with your post above, going on about your 'brilliance'. Does this include mocking people with brain tumours?
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.My arugument is frivilous litigation? What is that? A term you have picked up on a legal forum that you think sounds impressive so you thought you would missapply it? Do you think it makes you sound like a gentleman scientist? It doesn't it just displays your very evident ignorance.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
Oh do grow up. The internationally accepted definition doesnt fit you ridiculous world view so you claim it is wrong? Who are you? Humpty dumpty?NO, I know what the difference is according to ''you'' , but guess what? you are still wrong and making things up .So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
'The fact that you are working for your governmnent' . Evidence?That's more than a shade ironic.
You haven't added anything meaningful here.
The fact that you are working for your governmnent tells a lot about who you are and what you thinks.
How would you react if my government start to pick up evidences of this specific capacity of mobile devices to compromise or stimulate the central nervous system remotely?
You are a master of cognitive dissonance and infiltration BC.
tk
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
No. That is absolute crap. A neutron forms part of the nucleus.The neutron is the combined product of an electron and a proton. The atom is the neutron. The neutron can be a cation or an anion.It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst staeBut "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
a+b=N
then you state
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.
Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.
Saying'What? words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?
Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
ok?
It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst staeBut "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.Ok, he does not have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.
So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .
I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Try reading all of his answer.You are looking at water with a vagueness, try being underwater in a swimming pool. You can see the entire length of water between you and the side of the pool.I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.
You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.
You say the surface is reflecting light so you can see the water, what is the reflected visible wave-length?
OK. Just one minute please.Ah I see. Playing the conspiracy card then? We argue against us so we must be part of a government/corporate conspiracy? Nuts.
Could we all be honest and reveal our corporative, institutional, or governmental affiliations right here?
I work for nobody and not getting paid a dime for doing this investigation.
tk
I thought that you could read? You made a claim, back it up with evidence.No - you just posted a claim that you have the 'evidences' (as you call it) and the facts. You do get very angry when you are called out don't you?
LOL
What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?
tk