1

**New Theories / Re: what if a neutrino was not a particle?**

« **on:**11/06/2019 11:14:43 »

Why have you also posted the same question in New Theories?

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.

1

Why have you also posted the same question in New Theories?

2

This is spam and the OP is just posting unfounded conspiracy theory crap again. Please move to an appropriate part of the forum.

....

Add a public comment...

Dee Dee Winfrey

Dee Dee Winfrey

1 month ago

I'm still looking for intelligent life on earth 👽

1.7K

REPLY

View 136 replies

Michael Puckett

Highlighted reply

Michael Puckett

11 minutes agoWow bro, I think u have something here. It’s hard for my little chimp but I understood enough for u to blow my mind. Keep asking Neil & others. We must have a debate about this. You just may have changed the world & we don’t realize it yet. WOW.

3

Today in the Bay of Fundy the amplitude of the tides can be 6 meters, and tomorrow 18 meters.Where does it show this? Please post tide tables that show this variance.

What is the reason for such a sharp jump?

4

When A = 1 pizza and b = -1 pizza, you have no pizzas. This is basic fundamental stuff. You do cannot add 1+-1 and get as you seem to think 2 or 3 or any other number.No you don't. If I have no pizzas, and split no pizzas 4 ways how many pizzas have I got?We don't have no pizzas though , we have a+b=1 pizza and if you expand that pizza by a volume the pizza will decrease in density but it will still be 1 pizza .

5

I ask again, explain this 'interwoven binary field' with evidence for its existence.Not at all , consider how the positive charge of an interwoven binary field would push back a positive charge strike to amplify the strike .Newtons third law and Coulombs law.You do realise that a positive and/or negative charged gravitational wave can be observed as lightning ?Nonsense.

6

Not the way in which you use it.you should stop using the word ostensible because it makes look foolish.But that's the correct word , it appears to be true but on close inspection , it turns out not to be true .

7

You do realise that a positive and/or negative charged gravitational wave can be observed as lightning ?Nonsense.

8

That is utter gobbledegook.as BCpointed out, you should stop using the word ostensible because it makes look foolish.Q3 is the interwoven binary electrostatic field emitted by an atom with a net charge of 0 . The gravitational field of an atom in simple terms that is stretched by the exothermic process to have an ostensible density of 0 .Ah - so you have introduced Q3 . What is this please?Q isn't 1/tYes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1

9

No you don't.What do you get if you divide zero by something?You get a larger volume of 0 but you are not considering that 0 net charge is not nothing , we are dividing a binary energy with 0 net charge by a larger volume something . The density is spread out , stretched .

If I have no pizzas, and split no pizzas 4 ways how many pizzas have I got?

And what do you mean - 0 net charge is not nothing? There is either 0 charge or there is not.

Can you energy also explain what 'binary energy' is and the evidence for it's existence plus the other stuff you avoided answering.

10

Ah - so you have introduced Q3 . What is this please?Q isn't 1/tYes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1

11

So why change it to a and b?a=Q1Ah - so you have now introduced a+b. That wasn't in the original equation. What do you claim they represent?Oh - just noticed. The first equation which equals charge you seem to be saying that the relationship between time and volume is that time is divided by volume.Well no , pre big bang a+b are divided by time , when a+b combine they are then divided by the volume of space so the charge becomes divided by volume over time because once a+b is combined , time begins , there is something to age .

However when we get to the second equation you appear to state the the relationship is volume divided by time... Do you see the problem?

a+b/t is absolute where M/V over is time relative .

We could say relative time divided over absolute space .

b=Q2

The top row of your equation then adds positive charge to negative charge. This produces a big fat 0 charge...you then proceed to divide zero by time or volume or both...

What do you get if you divide zero by something?

12

That last sense makes no sense to an English speaker. And we do not think the aether has any properties in the same way as Father Christmas does not.But do you understand how you can not multiply a charge by the ratio of volume to a time, and still have something that is still a charge?

There's no multiplication in that , it is not meant to explain computers , it explains what energy is and density of energy .

I've explained before that you think the earths magnetic field and the aether has a density of 0 , this is not true , it is ostensible .

13

Ah - so you have now introduced a+b. That wasn't in the original equation. What do you claim they represent?Oh - just noticed. The first equation which equals charge you seem to be saying that the relationship between time and volume is that time is divided by volume.Well no , pre big bang a+b are divided by time , when a+b combine they are then divided by the volume of space so the charge becomes divided by volume over time because once a+b is combined , time begins , there is something to age .

However when we get to the second equation you appear to state the the relationship is volume divided by time... Do you see the problem?

a+b/t is absolute where M/V over is time relative .

We could say relative time divided over absolute space .

14

Evidence? An atoms volume is an exothermic process? Really? Why?And how did you derive this? I.ewhat is the basis for both of the equations? Not airy fairy flannel where you wave your hands in the air, but good solid evidence. You appear to say that energy equals charge. This in turn equals charge again but negative and positive (which must therefore cancel out) divided by time and again divided by volume. How does this equal either energy or charge? Where does volume come in? Why are you dividing charge which cancels out by time anyway?I derived at the equation in consideration of an electron and proton charge , (-e) + (+1e) resulting in a 0 net charge . I then considered an atoms volume and how an atom established a volume , considering this an exothermic process , the charge dividing by the surrounding space but retaining form by it's binary mechanism . I then additionally applied this to the weaker electrostatic field emitted by atoms , this concluded the same process . I then applied this even further to the interior of a BH . this again concluded the same process .

What binary mechanism are you referring to? What evidence that this 'mechanism' exists?

How did you apply this to the 'weaker electrostatic force surrounding atoms'? Explain this force and evidence for its existence.

How did you apply it to the interior of a black hole and why did you? How can you show this is relevant?

In all cases detail your workings and explain in plain language.

15

Oh - just noticed. The first equation which equals charge you seem to be saying that the relationship between time and volume is that time is divided by volume.

However when we get to the second equation you appear to state the the relationship is volume divided by time... Do you see the problem?

However when we get to the second equation you appear to state the the relationship is volume divided by time... Do you see the problem?

16

And how did you derive this? I.ewhat is the basis for both of the equations? Not airy fairy flannel where you wave your hands in the air, but good solid evidence.E = energyWhy don't you tell us what those squiggles represent and then we can judge what it means. You do realise that just putting a collection of symbols and operators is like a child doing 'let's play maths'?whocontradicts you is peddling fake science however. This indicates that you are completely delusional.

Nobody contradicts me at all, you personally don't attempt a defense , a defense is not peddling what is shown to be broken . You'd have to prove it is not broken and show my reasoning to be flawed

E = Q =

Q ∝

Q=charge

Q1=neg charge

Q2=pos charge

M=mass

V=volume

t=time

∝=proportional

You appear to say that energy equals charge. This in turn equals charge again but negative and positive (which must therefore cancel out) divided by time and again divided by volume. How does this equal either energy or charge? Where does volume come in? Why are you dividing charge which cancels out by time anyway?

17

Why don't you tell us what those squiggles represent and then we can judge what it means. You do realise that just putting a collection of symbols and operators is like a child doing 'let's play maths'?whocontradicts you is peddling fake science however. This indicates that you are completely delusional.

Nobody contradicts me at all, you personally don't attempt a defense , a defense is not peddling what is shown to be broken . You'd have to prove it is not broken and show my reasoning to be flawed

E = Q =

Q ∝

18

You also asked if I worked for CERN, which gives further evidence of your delusional, paranoid character.

19

Not assuch, you do claim that anybody whocontradicts you is peddling fake science however. This indicates that you are completely delusional.If all of science is fake, how come your computer works?I didn't say all of science was fake did I ?

20

No. But I dont think think it is good for your nonsense to be given credence and be in a thread that purports to contain new theories.You sound more like Donald Trump everyday. No grasp on reality, semi-literate and claiming that anybody that contradicts him is peddling fake news.

You fear the truth don't you ? That is why you can't discuss it , defender of dogma . Desperately now trying to get the thread closed or trashed .