Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 06/11/2015 11:20:59
-
Particle X is negative mass, particle X can not be physically attracted to particle X without an action.
An action is motion, if particle X was to collide with particle X the action would create force and energy.
If particle X gains E, particle X emits E, particle X gains Q, positive Q, positive Q=positive mass, that attracts negative mass particle X to make molecule Y.
Particle X can be split into three, however it is still particle X.
x→←x=E=+Q=G
(A) contains (P) and (E), (P) is not attracted to (P), only (E) is attracted to (P).
E1→←P2
E2→←P1
E1←→E2
E2←→E1
EMR propagating through space is neutral mass. Neutral mass that is ''convertual'' to positive mass.
Gravity mechanism is the epoch of combination of negative mass interacting with the neutral mass of EMR propagating through space, creating a positive mass and charge of the negative mass that remains an equilibrium by Thermodynamic process maintaining a stable Entropy.
-
wait, if action is motion, and motion is time, and time is distance, and action creates energy, and energy is mass, doesn't that mean that distance creates mass? I'm confused.
-
Also, I'm pretty sure that convertual entropy maintains an isolobal density throughout spacetime, such that non-degenerate localized phenomena partition into zero-point space. This becomes obvious when one considers the hyperfine parameters in the negative-mass tensor, which arise from coupling to the neutral-mass tensor. Of course, in cases where the phenomena are degenerate, this all happens faster than time (usually about twice as fast as time). Allow me to demonstrate:
c = speed of light
l = distance
x = t
W = negative mass
M = positive mass
K = equilibrium constant
.....'',;;::cccllllllllllllcccc:::;;,,,''...'',,'..
..';cldkO00KXNNNNXXXKK000OOkkkkkxxxxxddoooddddddxxxxkkkkOO0XXKx:.
.':ok0KXXXNXK0kxolc:;;,,,,,,,,,,,;;,,,''''''',,''.. .'lOXKd'
.,lx00Oxl:,'............''''''................... ...,;;'. .oKXd.
.ckKKkc'...'',:::;,'.........'',;;::::;,'..........'',;;;,'.. .';;'. 'kNKc.
.:kXXk:. .. .................. .............,:c:'...;:'. .dNNx.
:0NKd, .....''',,,,''.. ',...........',,,'',,::,...,,. .dNNx.
.xXd. .:;'.. ..,' .;,. ...,,'';;'. ... .oNNo
.0K. .;. ;' '; .'...'. .oXX:
.oNO. . ,. . ..',::ccc:;,.. .. lXX:
.dNX: ...... ;. 'cxOKK0OXWWWWWWWNX0kc. :KXd.
.l0N0; ;d0KKKKKXK0ko:... .l0X0xc,...lXWWWWWWWWKO0Kx' ,ONKo.
.lKNKl...'......'. .dXWN0kkk0NWWWWWN0o. :KN0;. .,cokXWWNNNNWNKkxONK: .,:c:. .';;;;:lk0XXx;
:KN0l';ll:'. .,:lodxxkO00KXNWWWX000k. oXNx;:okKX0kdl:::;'',;coxkkd, ...'. ...'''.......',:lxKO:.
oNNk,;c,'',. ...;xNNOc,. ,d0X0xc,. .dOd, ..;dOKXK00000Ox:. ..''dKO,
'KW0,:,.,:..,oxkkkdl;'. 'KK' .. .dXX0o:'....,:oOXNN0d;.'. ..,lOKd. .. ;KXl.
;XNd,; ;. l 00kxoooxKXKx:..ld: ;KK' .:dkO000000Okxl;. c0; :KK; . ;XXc
'XXdc. :. .. '' 'kNNNKKKk, .,dKNO. .... .'c0NO' :X0. ,. xN0.
.kNOc' ,. .00. ..''... .l0X0d;. 'dOkxo;... .;okKXK0KNXx;. .0X: ,. lNX'
,KKdl .c, .dNK, .;xXWKc. .;:coOXO,,'....... .,lx0XXOo;...oNWNXKk:.'KX; ' dNX.
:XXkc'.... .dNWXl .';l0NXNKl. ,lxkkkxo' .cK0. ..;lx0XNX0xc. ,0Nx'.','.kXo ., ,KNx.
cXXd,,;:, .oXWNNKo' .'.. .'.'dKk; .cooollox;.xXXl ..,cdOKXXX00NXc. 'oKWK';k: .l. ,0Nk.
cXNx. . ,KWX0NNNXOl'. .o0Ooldk; .:c;.':lxOKKK0xo:,.. ;XX: .,lOXWWXd. . .':,.lKXd.
lXNo cXWWWXooNWNXKko;'.. .lk0x; ...,:ldk0KXNNOo:,.. ,OWNOxO0KXXNWNO, ....'l0Xk,
.dNK. oNWWNo.cXK;;oOXNNXK0kxdolllllooooddxk00KKKK0kdoc:c0No .'ckXWWWNXkc,;kNKl. .,kXXk,
'KXc .dNWWX;.xNk. .kNO::lodxkOXWN0OkxdlcxNKl,.. oN0'..,:ox0XNWWNNWXo. ,ONO' .o0Xk;
.ONo oNWWN0xXWK, .oNKc .ONx. ;X0. .:XNKKNNWWWWNKkl;kNk. .cKXo. .ON0;
.xNd cNWWWWWWWWKOkKNXxl:,'...;0Xo'.....'lXK;...',:lxk0KNWWWWNNKOd:.. lXKclON0: .xNk.
.dXd ;XWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNWWNNNNNNNNNWWNNNNNNWWWWWNXKNNk;.. .dNWWXd. cXO.
.xXo .ONWNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNK0ko:'..OXo 'l0NXx, :KK,
.OXc :XNk0NWXKNWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNX00NNx:'.. lXKc. 'lONN0l. .oXK:
.KX; .dNKoON0;lXNkcld0NXo::cd0NNO:;,,'.. .0Xc lXXo..'l0NNKd,. .c0Nk,
:XK. .xNX0NKc.cXXl ;KXl .dN0. .0No .xNXOKNXOo,. .l0Xk;.
.dXk. .lKWN0d::OWK; lXXc .OX: .ONx. . .,cdk0XNXOd;. . '''....;c:'..;xKXx,
.0No .:dOKNNNWNKOxkXWXo:,,;ONk;,,,,,;c0NXOxxkO0XXNXKOdc,. ..;::,...;lol;..:xKXOl.
,XX: ..';cldxkOO0KKKXXXXXXXXXXKKKKK00Okxdol:;'.. .';::,..':llc,..'lkKXkc.
:NX' . '' .................. .,;:;,',;ccc;'..'lkKX0d;.
lNK. .; ,lc,. ................ ..,,;;;;;;:::,....,lkKX0d:.
.oN0. .'. .;ccc;,'.... ....'',;;;;;;;;;;'.. .;oOXX0d:.
.dN0. .;;,.. .... ..''''''''.... .:dOKKko;.
lNK' ..,;::;;,'......................... .;d0X0kc'.
.xXO' .;oOK0x:.
.cKKo. .,:oxkkkxk0K0xc'.
.oKKkc,. .';cok0XNNNX0Oxoc,.
.;d0XX0kdlc:;,,,',,,;;:clodkO0KK0Okdl:,'..
.,coxO0KXXXXXXXKK0OOxdoc:,..
...
-
Chiral I hate to tell you this but one of your terms is an order of magnitude out.
-
I spy a catheter.
-
It looks more like a pigeon than maths, I feel you must be mocking me.
-
I spot a troll face, I thought mods could not troll threads?
Do not take me for being stupid.
-
Well your going to ban me soon anyway, I know how this goes I have seen it all too often. I stump science so they close my thread , then the mods start to turn insulting etc.
So I suppose I have nothing to lose in saying , If your not conscious, time does not exist, time is a state of conciousness within 3 dimensions of ourselves.
I suppose you can close this now as well, talking in new theories a new theory is obviously not allowed.
-
You are actually very lucky to be posting in a forum that is tolerant of new ideas. However, you do not follow the normal rules of mathematics or physics. We can all make things up off the top of our heads but if no one else understands it because it is unclear then how can a sensible debate take place. Science is about the open exchange of ideas and formulas so that they can be scrutinised and subjected to criticism. You can't do that if the terms are freshly invented.
-
You are actually very lucky to be posting in a forum that is tolerant of new ideas. However, you do not follow the normal rules of mathematics or physics. We can all make things up off the top of our heads but if no one else understands it because it is unclear then how can a sensible debate take place. Science is about the open exchange of ideas and formulas so that they can be scrutinised and subjected to criticism. You can't do that if the terms are freshly invented.
If something is not understood why not just ask about the part that is not understood?
←→ velocity=direction and speed
I understand it but nobody understands me so it is hard.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/becoming-a-self-consciousness-body/
''Syntactic ambiguity, also called amphiboly or amphibology, is a situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure''.
Science never considers this.
I can see where I confused you, The E in the first part reps energy, the E in the second part reps electrons, P reps protons,
this (V)xneg1→←(V)xneg2=E+=q+=G
shows two particles with negative mass colliding gaining energy and plus charge that makes gravity work. The arrows represent direction the collision.
(A) contains (P) and (e), (P) is not attracted to (P), only (e) is attracted to (P) and (F) is force
eF1→←PF2
eF2→←PF1
eF1←→eF2
eF2←→eF1
This shows the process of two atoms , electrons and protons and the force directions involved.
-
Well your going to ban me soon anyway, I know how this goes I have seen it all too often.
The reason you've seen this before is evidence that others have witnessed your errors as well.
I suppose you can close this now as well, talking in new theories a new theory is obviously not allowed.
New theories require support from evidence of which you have provided little. Speculation is not evidence and demanding others disprove your speculations is bad science.
-
New theories require support from evidence of which you have provided little. Speculation is not evidence and demanding others disprove your speculations is bad science.
Completely agreed, and all the evidence I have you already have, I do not need to provide evidence when all the evidence you already have. You can't tell me one thing for years on various forums then change your minds to suit. That is bad science to deny your own facts that you know.
I am making nothing up except the playing around with some maths.
I speculate nothing, axioms are not speculation.
I do have some strange thoughts agreed, but surely you can distinguish the facts from the chaff?
When someone actually takes me serious, then maybe I will start at the beginning and show all your evidence that says what I say to be true. But of cause I am just an idiot troll.
-
When someone actually takes me serious, then maybe I will start at the beginning and show all your evidence that says what I say to be true. But of cause I am just an idiot troll.
We have tried (really hard!) to understand what you mean (see the many threads where we discuss time, gravity, probability, buoyancy etc. with you for dozens of posts). We just keep on cycling back to either having no idea what you are trying to say or knowing that your axioms are unreasonable or your logic unsound.
You also clearly have a huge barrier to understanding why you are wrong, and most of it stems from your inability to admit that you *might* be wrong. Your lack of understanding of accepted logic and math also results in you being confused when we prove that something is true (or false) using math or logic. By your own admission, you face these problems on all the fora you present your "theories" on.
You have recognized that this overconfidence is a problem in the past, but somehow you always seem to swing around and start spouting the same nonsense that we thought we disproved in the last thread.
-
You have recognized that this overconfidence is a problem in the past, but somehow you always seem to swing around and start spouting the same nonsense that we thought we disproved in the last thread.
This is my confusion, you have neither disproved me or got into a logical argument with me, you have disproved nothing. You are arguing against your own facts, you are providing no logical argument, you have not discussed any of my actual ideas and say I am wrong because presently it says this...
Alan locked my other thread for no reason, it is in new theories so any idea goes in there. You are now doing what all other forums do and totally discarding what your forum section title says.
Not once do you actually consider the premise for argument, my logic is accurate and of your own science.
I can not honestly believe that science is this arrogant, and alls I can say is you may just well regret not trying to understand because you are not being patience.
I am improving by the day in explanation.
start here - my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion!
Yes or no (A) is always equal to (B) when (A) is time and (B) is the measurement/motion that is setting the time rate?
I.e (A)=1 second
(B)= 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
(A)=(B)
I know the answer is yes
so before the caesium clock
(A)=?
What did you use to define a rate?
Answer - The suns relative motion to the earth
Why even try to lie?
-
The terms on either side of an equals sign MUST be equal. This includes the dimensions that these values are measured in. The expression 1 = 9192631770 doesn't work. If you had said x = 1/9 192 631 770 then you might be able to explain exactly what x represents. If what you are saying is that time is quantised then you have to show how this has been derived. I still have no idea exactly what you mean so I am making a wild guess. This is all I can do since your terms make no sense to me.
-
The terms on either side of an equals sign MUST be equal. This includes the dimensions that these values are measured in. The expression 1 = 9192631770 doesn't work. If you had said x = 1/9 192 631 770 then you might be able to explain exactly what x represents. If what you are saying is that time is quantised then you have to show how this has been derived. I still have no idea exactly what you mean so I am making a wild guess. This is all I can do since your terms make no sense to me.
You jest surely?
10mm=1cm
100cm=1meter
1 second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
that is not that hard to understand so surely you jest?
P.s X= a degree of movement
X=1 second = 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
(x)=(a)=(b)
1 degree = approx 69 mile = approx 240 seconds
240*360=86400=24 hrs
-
start here - my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion!
Your terms are confusing Mr. Box.
The period of time can be expressed in minutes, seconds, or which ever common measure of time one wishes to choose. However, defining the period of measured time is different than defining time itself.
Distance/motion........? You first need to establish what measure of motion your using.
Miles/Hours
Meters/seconds
Your "Distance/motion" is not a proper construction.
"Distance/motion" is like say: Miles/Miles per hour and that expression is meaningless.
-
start here - my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion!
Your terms are confusing Mr. Box.
The period of time can be expressed in minutes, seconds, or which ever common measure of time one wishes to choose. However, defining the period of measured time is different than defining time itself.
Distance/motion........? You first need to establish what measure of motion your using.
Miles/Hours
Meters/seconds
Your "Distance/motion" is not a proper construction.
"Distance/motion" is like say: Miles/Miles per hour and that expression is meaningless.
Distance , motion, velocity or irrelevant when we have not yet worked out how to define time.
Consider a clock , the fingers move a distance to represent time, and measure time, 1 second is equal to a small degrees of movement of the fingers, consider a sundial, the shadow moves a small degrees of movement to represent a second, finally consider the caesium clock, the rate of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation does not define a second, the rate was defined to equal a second that was based on relative movement so nothing changes.
I explain this is as state (1) of time, an arbitrary creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities. I do not state this is is real time and actual time.
Dont forget to consider when history created measurement of time, they had no construction.
-
Distance , motion, velocity or irrelevant when we have not yet worked out how to define time.
If you really believe that statement, why do you continue to insist that:
"Distance/motion = time"
-
Distance , motion, velocity or irrelevant when we have not yet worked out how to define time.
If you really believe that statement, why do you continue to insist that:
"Distance/motion = time"
I do not insist that, I am showing you histories mistake that was not considered until I considered it, history denoted ''distance/motion''=arbitrary time
-
I do not insist that, I am showing you histories mistake that was not considered until I considered it, history denoted ''distance/motion''=arbitrary time
Nowhere in history has any respected Physicist made the assertion that Miles/Miles per hour equals time.
-
I do not insist that, I am showing you histories mistake that was not considered until I considered it, history denoted ''distance/motion''=arbitrary time
Nowhere in history has any respected Physicist made the assertion that Miles/Miles per hour equals time.
MPh was after time you need time for mph, this is what history has done to us. They made a mistake in doing this, now you know why I keep saying it is wrong. No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
-
No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
You're right. Einstein never considered *time*--this changes everything!
-
MPh was after time you need time for mph, this is what history has done to us. They made a mistake in doing this, now you know why I keep saying it is wrong. No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
Mr. Box..................You're not making much sense.
"Distance/motion=time"
Distance can be expressed in Miles.
Motion can be expressed in Miles per hour.
Miles divided by miles per hour makes no sense.
If you don't like the term Miles per Hour, just how would you suggest we replace it?
-
No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
You're right. Einstein never considered *time*--this changes everything!
shock face
-
MPh was after time you need time for mph, this is what history has done to us. They made a mistake in doing this, now you know why I keep saying it is wrong. No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
Mr. Box..................You're not making much sense.
"Distance/motion=time"
Distance can be expressed in Miles.
Motion can be expressed in Miles per hour.
Miles divided by miles per hour makes no sense.
If you don't like the term Miles per Hour, just how would you suggest we replace it?
Your not making sense , MPh needs time to be measured first, you need a measurement value to calculate mph of time, history blundered I think Chiral now gets it and may be able to explain more ''sciency''
''Miles divided by miles per hour makes no sense.''
exactly blame history
-
Chiral - do you understand this now?
1-Time is an arbitrary creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities.
1.1- This state of time is denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such.
2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(space-time)
2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Albert Einstein created space-time and XYZ, virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
3-Time is the independent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)
3.1- This state of time is all of existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence. Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency.
Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy all three states of time, at the same time.
Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.
-
Still think I am a fool?
69/240= approx 0.2875 mile per second=0.2875*3600=approx 1035 mph
I am looking at this now -
''The transfer principle states that true first order statements about R are also valid in *R. For example, the commutative law of addition, x + y = y + x, holds for the hyperreals just as it does for the reals; since R is a real closed field, so is *R. Since \sin{\pi n}=0 for all integers n, one also has \sin{\pi H}=0 for all hyperintegers H. ''
-
Still think I am a fool?
ok
I've never called you a fool Mr. Box but you have displayed a degree of inconsistency and contradiction in your posts.
Let's start by examining your reply #13 where you make the statement:
"start here-my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion."
While you assert here that "Distance/motion is equal to time", in the later post #25 you agree that "miles divided by mph" is inaccurate by saying: "exactly blame history."
Soooo, Mr. Box, which is it? You can't make an assertion in one post and then turn right around in a following post and state the opposite.
I will not call you a fool but I am prepared to say that you're positions are not at all credible.
-
I think Chiral now gets it and may be able to explain more ''sciency''
You misunderstood my sarcasm. Please reread my post:
No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
You're right. Einstein never considered *time*--this changes everything!
Einstein was brilliant, and thought very long and very hard about *time* (perhaps what you would call "absolute time" though he would certainly not call it that because time is, of course, relative)
It sounds like your problems with "arbitrary time" are all avoided by clarifying that nobody uses this kind of arbitrary time!
-
You misunderstood my sarcasm. Please reread my post:
Like many other facts, Mr. Box not only misinterpreted your sarcasm, he is lacking understanding in several other areas.
-
I will not call you a fool but I am prepared to say that you're positions are not at all credible.
Science already has time=distance/motion this is the mistake I am trying to show you that I thought Chiral had understood. I think you are all being intentionally obtuse.
I have given the maths that all fits and works so stop insulting my intelligence when I am clearly correct because science told me this.
Pfff I give up I swear it is like you all are living in a completely different dimension and defend false hoods.
added- I have got to ask, is science really a front for religion and in keeping things as present you get to keep God alive?
Otherwise I am speechless, you can't all be stupid I am sure of that, so why are you trying to deny truths?
I do not believe Chiral was being sarcastic, he emphasised the word time
You're right. Einstein never considered *time*--this changes everything
normally a person would put ''time'', * represents something, scientists dont misrepresent things.
''Einstein was brilliant, and thought very long and very hard about *time* (perhaps what you would call "absolute time" ''
clearly a change in use, I think you know my 3 states of time are accurate but I would understand a concern that you think I am a troll by some of my more gibberish posts and taking the mick over at bad science forum. I understand putting things like , eat this science, dont go down well, but that is just me having a bit of banter,
-
Time is not equal to a frequency
Time is not equal to a degree of movement
Time is not equal to a speed or distance
time is equal to.........I am not going to tell you because you all mess about and do not take science seriously.
-
but i got to tell you
time= a variable rate of an individual observer relative to gravitational influence.
t1=t2≠t3
t3=σ²/g
State 1
1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities.
1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such. A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate.
1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate
1.3- This abstract time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time.
1.4 -point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true and A≡B≡C holds true and A||B ||C holds true.
state 2
2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time)
2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.
2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise, a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''. Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable.
2.4-In agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true.
-
Is it worth me bothering writing state 3 up and showing real time and what it is and what this means-t3=σ²/g?
It is very simple that time has no set rate so therefore can not accurately be measured to A=B
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]