501
Just Chat! / Re: How to build missile
« on: 31/08/2018 12:59:40 »
This guy is just spamming the forum. He keeps starting new threads that create litter cant the mods restrict this?
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.
Neuro dynamics in relationship to var (x), what this means is a line of thinking or queries in regards to questioning some thing, var (x) being any line extending from the center point of yourself, this line specifically can be looked at in any direction from the center of thought, your brain.Oh look, since chatting to TKADM he has learned a new prefix to litter his posts with...
Diagram 1 - var (x)
girl_head_free_3d_model_c4d_max_obj_fbx_ma_lwo_3ds_3dm_stl_2023404_o.jpg (143.5 kB . 1000x760 - viewed 3280 times)
Diagram 2. Neuro constants
h1.jpg (143.53 kB . 1000x760 - viewed 3202 times)
A neuro constant is a memory ''vector'', in example in the above diagram , let us ask a question, what is 1+1 ?
The automatic neuro process of memory in a seemingly instant reaction in a healthy mind, choices the correct ''vector'' automatically to give the answer of 2.
To be continued....
For I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?
In answer toFor I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?
You indi1. This is due to the inaccuracy of the translation.1. Whilst reading and comprehension don't seem to be your your strong points, look at this again.For I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?
2. Have you not noticed that it is a quote from another forum member?
2. Ask this question where you read it, there is more information you need.
2. Ask this question where you read it, there is more information you need.
You are claiming this is a quotye from Kryptid. It is not - hence my point about reading and comprehension not being one of your strong point. Look again at Kryptid's posts - this is not a statement he is making, he is quoting your friend TheBox. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.For I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?In answer toFor I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?You indi1. This is due to the inaccuracy of the translation.1. Whilst reading and comprehension don't seem to be your your strong points, look at this again.For I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?
2. Have you not noticed that it is a quote from another forum member?
2. Ask this question where you read it, there is more information you need.2. Ask this question where you read it, there is more information you need.
Why don't you google this and find out?
Whilst reading and comprehension don't seem to be your your strong points, look at this again. Have you not noticed that it is a quote from another forum member?For I am the God of science.Ask questions at the level of your status.
Seriously?
My apologies. The question should have been 'do you have any credible, peer reviewed sources to back up your assertion'.All these data are on the Internet.Have you evidence for that assertion?Again, you are being selective with the data. If you look at a map of the world you will see that the equator passes through very few coastal places whereas the 2 temperate zones include a large number of coastal sites, so your two samples are not comparable.Take even wider.
You have the advantage, you collect data at the equator, and I'm in the temperate zone.
According to the lunar theory of tides, the earth's crust at the latitude of London rises and falls twice a day with an amplitude of about 20 cm. At the equator, the swing of oscillations exceeds half a meter (at the equator 2.5 times more).
If to argue logically, at the equator the height of the tide should be 35-40 meters.
If, the Bay of Fundy was on the equator, then the height of the tide was 45 meters.
https://ru.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Трудные_темы_курса_физики/Приливные_силы_и_волны
So thanks to them, the earth's crust at the latitude of Moscow, with frequency twice a day, rises and falls with an amplitude of about 20 cm. At the equator, the swing of oscillations exceeds half a meter.
https:/.../dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_geo/6965/приливы
https:/.../slovar.wikireading.ru/1092227
Have you evidence for that assertion?Again, you are being selective with the data. If you look at a map of the world you will see that the equator passes through very few coastal places whereas the 2 temperate zones include a large number of coastal sites, so your two samples are not comparable.Take even wider.
You have the advantage, you collect data at the equator, and I'm in the temperate zone.
According to the lunar theory of tides, the earth's crust at the latitude of London rises and falls twice a day with an amplitude of about 20 cm. At the equator, the swing of oscillations exceeds half a meter (at the equator 2.5 times more).
If to argue logically, at the equator the height of the tide should be 35-40 meters.
The highest tides on Earth are formed in the Fandi Bay in North America - 18 m, Ungava Bay Quebec 17, at the mouth of the Severn River in England - 16 m, in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel in France - 15 m, in the mouths of the Sea of Okhotsk, Penzhinskaya and Gizhiginskaya - 13 m , at the cape Nerpinsky in the Mezensky Bay - 11 m.I have sailed in the Severn estuary several times and have yet to encounter these whirlpools you seem to think are present.
The swirling theory of tides explains this inconsistency by the absence of whirlpools at the equator, as well as cyclones and anticyclones.
This is like a child saying 'you can't speak to my imaginary friend because they use a language that only I can understand'.Which proves that you are a mathematically illiterate fool.
I don't mean to sound rude, but obviously you do not understand if you think the maths is meaningless and illiterate. The maths works with my conceptual envision I have explained with theory . The NFEU model does not ignore present Physics, to the contrary the model is based on some of the present physics such as Coulombs law, space-time and Dirac. I think you are possibly not considering Alpha or Beta point energy particle manifestations , popping into and out of existence , the dissipate resulting in dispersion to 0 value.
Adding 0 to 1 and getting 2 is mathematically illiterate. You cannot add nothing to something and get an increase. Likewise division does not mean in the context of maths something is separated from something. That is putting something into a different set.Which proves that you are a mathematically illiterate fool.
I don't mean to sound rude, but obviously you do not understand if you think the maths is meaningless and illiterate. The maths works with my conceptual envision I have explained with theory . The NFUE model does not ignore present Physics, to the contrary the model is based on some of the present physics such as Coulombs law, space-time and Dirac. I think you are possibly not considering Alpha or Beta point energy particle manifestations , popping into and out of existence , the dissipate resulting in dispersion to 0 value.
Indeed that reads 1+0+0=2Which proves that you are a mathematically illiterate fool.
Makes on interesting angled pattern of numbers
1+0+0=2
1+0+0+0+0=3
1+0+0+0+0+0+0=4
1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=5
1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=6
So it cannot be mathematically represented then? Why do you persist in trying to do so by making up equations and redifining operators? Pigeon chess.Oh please, if you have 2 apples and you divide them by two people, they get one each. If you a volume of infinite space there is no 1 value so we cant say A+B/1 because there is no one , so we have to say A+B/K because there is also no time until A becomes a binary with B, then time beings and then we can say (A+B) + A/t + B/t = 2 , but we could also say (A+B) + A/t + B/t = ^∞ because the process is without limits.That is obviously nonsense. You seem to not understand what division is in mathematics.This is not how maths works - it is a common languageHmm, sorry but maths works the way we make it fit, that is how all maths works. Are you saying that I and you are not presently divided by space ? Think about that ...
You sure it is just atoms?Explain what you think anions and cations are are then.Positive or negative charged atoms....
Like A + B = H (hydrogen), not a sentence related to the above.
That is obviously nonsense. You seem to not understand what division is in mathematics.This is not how maths works - it is a common languageHmm, sorry but maths works the way we make it fit, that is how all maths works. Are you saying that I and you are not presently divided by space ? Think about that ...
Explain what you think anions and cations are are then.2,4,6,8,10,12......etc all being N where all odd numbers become anions or cations .Do you know what anions and cations are?2,4,6,8,10,12......etc all being N where all odd numbers become anions or cations .Do you know what cations and anions are?
Take 4 in example , the equilibrium phase flux range is decimal 3 to 5
The last sentence is your usual word salad nonsense, pigeon.
Of course I know what anions and cations are, the last sentence is not nonsense, again , you have just not heard it before so at this time do not understand it . I am not trying to be awkward...
2,4,6,8,10,12......etc all being N where all odd numbers become anions or cations .Do you know what anions and cations are?
2,4,6,8,10,12......etc all being N where all odd numbers become anions or cations .Do you know what cations and anions are?
Take 4 in example , the equilibrium phase flux range is decimal 3 to 5
Of course Einstein's equation did not exist! I am not arguing that!!! You are trying to redefine what mathematical operators such as division are to suit you. This is not how maths works - it is a common language. Einstein did did not redefine what multiplication was. Furthermore, his equation could be easily, conceptually explained which demonstrated how it related to his theroy. Yours cannot because it is made up, using made up maths. It is like dealing with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.
Bullshit. You are incapable of even simple maths so you make up 'new maths' to obfuscate in an attempt to make people think you are saying something profound. Division is division, as addition is addition etc. It your lack of basic scientific, mathematical knowledge that is the problem pigeon.
Not at all, you are failing to have your own creative ability and looking at my math(s) from your memory mind experience. You are not considering that E=mc² did not even exist until Einstein created it to fit the process of energy. Your mind is not comprehending the new part of the math(s). Your brain is not processing the word new , you are focusing on old math(s) .
Let us not get irate at each other, let us continue nicely to each other. Can we start here :
-0.5q + 0.5 q = N q
Firstly do you agree with this equation ? Where q is charge and N is neutral
My other calculations are:
A+B = m1
m1 + A + B = m1^2
How is that wrong ?
2,4,6,8,10,12......etc all being N where all odd numbers become anions or cations .
Take 4 in example , the equilibrium phase flux range is decimal 3 to 5
Bullshit. You are incapable of even simple maths so you make up 'new maths' to obfuscate in an attempt to make people think you are saying something profound. Division is division, as addition is addition etc. It your lack of basic scientific, mathematical knowledge that is the problem pigeon.Perhaps not, but it is how it works in the NFUE model as the model understands when working with nothingness, maths does not even exist until some maths is created to fit the process. Hence my own maths that is simple to understand that does explain the process.Ah - I wondered how long it would be before something was pointed out that was obviously incorrect and you said 'but I don't use conventional maths/science/Language' I use my own. As I said, pigeon chess.
It is not pigeon chess, you just don't understand the math(s) because it is new math(s) and you are not use to it. The exact same as I am not use to some of ''your'' math(s). My math(s) works with my theory , so therefore it is a valid theory , I have demonstrated nothingness math(s) that works. If you have any better suggestions how we approach the math(s) for nothingness, then I am happy to listen.
Perhaps not, but it is how it works in the NFUE model as the model understands when working with nothingness, maths does not even exist until some maths is created to fit the process. Hence my own maths that is simple to understand that does explain the process.Ah - I wondered how long it would be before something was pointed out that was obviously incorrect and you said 'but I don't use conventional maths/science/Language' I use my own. As I said, pigeon chess.
That is not how division works as a mathematical operation....You need to show how your 'equation' demonstrates what you claim it does.
I am not quite sure what you mean , so let me try again and start with Alpha waves
This represents the dissipate into a n -dimensional K space. Can you understand that part?
We could also say divided by force 1, but I prefer space.
added- imagine me and you are A and we split up , we are divided by space yes?